Status of Cases on Revision of Pension of Pre 2006 Pensioners from 1st January 2006

Status of Cases on Revision of Pension of Pre 2006 Pensioners from 1st January 2006 – Compiled by M.L.Kanujia and published in Bharat Pensioners Samaj

Mr.M.L.Kanujia is an active member in GConnect Discussion Board. He has shared information on many issues on Pensioners in GConnect Forum which is evident from as many as 500 threads / replies made by him as a senior member of GConnect Forums. Especially, on the issue of Revision of pension of Pre 2006 pensioners his contribution is significant which created atmost awareness among Pre 2006 Pensioners about the importance of the collective effort needed to get the revised pension as per revised concordance table.

Click here read the posts of Mr.M.L.Kanujia in GConnect Discussion Board

Also check the following links to get more information on Revision of Pension of Pre 2006 Pensioners from 1st January 2006

[catlist tags=”pre-2006-pensioners” numberposts=20 orderby=date order=desc]

Status of the cases of Pre 2006 Pensioners in various Courts Compiled by M.L.Kanujia IRSSE / Chief Communication Engineer, N.E. Railway, (Rtd.)

item	HEARD BY	PETITION NO. & YEAR	LEAD PETITIONER	NEXT DATE FIXED FOR HEARING	REMARKSIN BRIEF
1	CAT-PB Delhi	OA1165/ 2011	Pratap Narain & Ors Vs. MOP/DOP	Orders Reserved on 12.03.2015	SCPC Recommendations in respect of pensioners, who retired prior to 1.1.2006, was accepted and approved by the Union Cabinet, vide MOP(DOP&PW) Resolution dated 29.08.2008 but while implementing, revised pension was wrongly reduced even where qqualifying service was more than 20 years. This petition prays for refixation of pension at full rate where qualifyingservice happens to be more than 20 years, exactly as per Resolution dated 29.08.2008.UOI filed an affidavit on 15.04.14. A Counter to this would be filed soon.During hearing on 23.05.14, Hon.ble Court stated that as per prayer of petitioners “parameters of revise pension should be same as for post 2006, although basically your plea is for full pension at 20 years of qualifyingservice.” Thereupon, Petitioners agreed to submit MA withdrawing “same parameter” prayer by submitting an MA. The hon.ble Court stated that MA should be submitted and thereafter case can be heard.On 12.3.2015, on completion of arguments by both parties, orders reserved.
2	CAT-PB Delhi	OA2165/ 2011	KR Srinivasan & Ors Vs. MOP/flOP	Orders reserved on 12.03.2015	Same as for item 1 above.
3	CAT-PB Delhi	OA 247 of 2012	17 Petitioners	Orders reserved on 12.03.2015	Same as for item 1 above.
4	Lucknow HC	Ser.Ben.203 / 2010	s29UP Officers	26.02.2015	The case is for modified parity i.e. revision of pension at 50% of sum of minimum of the pay in the pay band plus the grade pay corresponding to the pre revised pay scale from which apensioner had retired, in terms of Resolution dated 29.08.08, effective 1.1.2006.Heard on 16.4.14 but UOI Advocate sought time, which was granted. Heard on 15.05.14 and hon.ble Court issued order: “Sri Neerav Chitravanshi, learned counsel for the respondent has filed written submissions after serving a copy upon learned counsel for the petitioner, which is taken on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted a week’s time to file his written submissions alongwith the convenience petition. Case was heard on 27.5.14 when hon.ble justice took on record the written submission of Shri SN Shukla, Petitioner’s Advocate. As per latest Order dated 3.7.2014, HSC decision on pending SLPs 36148-50/2013 is awaited.
5	Delhi HC	WP(C)3359/ 2010	Ex.Para Military <s29,s26) Association Vs UOI	13.08.2015	The case is for modified parity i.e. revision of pension at 50% of sum of minimum of the pay in the pay band plus the grade pay corresponding to the pre revised pay scale from which a pension had retired, in terms of Resolution dated 29.08.08, effective 1.1.2006.
6	Supreme Court	Contempt Petition (Civil)64/2009	SPS Vains, Major General &Ors.	01.07.2015	This case is for grant of Modified Parity in terms of MOP,DOP Resolution dated 29.8.2008, after including the same in Special Instructions.
7	Supreme Court	Civil Appeal 2966/2011	U0I Vs SPS Vains Mj. General & Ors	01.07.2015	This case is for grant of Modified Parity in terms of MOP,DOP Resolution dated 29.8.2008, after including the same in Special Instructions.
8	Supreme Court	Civil Appeal 8875-8876 of 2011.(Now clubbed with SLP (Civil) 36148-36150 / 2013.See item 15 below)	U0I & Ors.Vs. Vinod Kumar Jain & Ors (Avtar Singh)	DOJ 17.03.2015	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: Hon.ble Supreme Court passed following Order : O R D E R. Heard. Delay condoned.We see no reason to interfere with the orders impugned. The civil appeals are accordingly dismissed.
9	Supreme Court	Civil Appeal 5367 -5368 / 2005 SLPC CC 5081-82/2004	Principal Secretary, Govt. Finance and Planning Deptt., Andhra Pradesh Vs. A.P.Pensioners Samaj.	DOJ:30.04.14	Heard on 30.04.2014 and dismissed with following remarks : “We do not see any reason to interfere with the concurrent conclusion of the High Court as well as of the Tribunal. The appeals are accordingly dismissed.”
10	Delhi HC	WPC No. 4572 of 2012	All India S30 Pensioners Association Vs. UOI	DOJ 19.8.13.	Full parity case wherein writ, order or direction sought are : (a) setting aside the impugned judgment dated 6th March, 2012 passed by the Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A. No.937 of 2010; (b) calling for the records of the case from the Respondent Authorities; (c) granting the
					reliefs prayed for by the Petitioners in their Original Application No.937 of 2010 filed before the Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi; and Judgment thereof.. DHC has obsrved in operating paras : we set aside the impugned decision(s) dated March 06, 2012 and simultaneously we restore OA No.937/2010 and OA No.2101/2010 for fresh adjudication on merits by the Tribunal on the claim of the petitioners for full parity. The decision shall be rendered after giving full opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and the decision dated November 01, 2011 passed by the Tribunal in the case of S-29 scale retirees shall not be treated as binding upon it by the Tribunal for the reasons on the subject of full parity the said decision was pronounced notwithstanding said retirees giving up the claim for full parity. The matter would be decided in remand as early as possible and preferably within three months from today. Parties shall appear through their counsel before the Registrar of the Tribunal in the two original applications on September 09, 2013 on which date OA No.937/2010 and OA No.2101/2010 shall be listed before the Registrar.
11	CAT-PB	OA No. 937 of 2010 and OA No. 2101 of 2010 (DHC order for Fresh Adjudication)Review Petition 10/2015	All India S30 Pensioners Association Vs. UOIUOI vs AIS30	DOJ: 20.11.2014NDH: 06.05.2015	Hon.ble Delhi High Court, in WP(C) 4572 of 2012 in case of All India S30 Pensioners Association Vs. UOI has, by order dated 19.8.2013, has restored these two OAs for fresh adjudication on merits on the claim of full parity, giving full opportunity of hearing the petitioners, without binding decision given on 1.11.2011 in case of OA No. 655 of 2010. Delhi HC has further ordered that the matter would be decided in remand preferably within three months from 19.8.2013 and case be listed for hearing by on 9.9.2013, when both parties would appear before Registrar of CAT-PB. Judgment dated 20.11.2011 allowed O.A.Govt. filed Review Petition against the Judgment and the same will come up for hearing on 06.05.2015.
12	CAT-PB/Delhi	Contempt Petition No.158 of 2012	CG SAG (S29) Pensioners Association, Shri Satish Verma, Rtd.CE Vs. Shri RC Mishra, Sec. DOP, MOP,GOI. and Shri Sumit Bose, Sec.DOE,MOF, GOI.	09.04.2015	This Petition is against non-compliance of orders passed by CAT-PB while giving Judgment in case of OA 0655/2010 with other OAs. Consequent on dismissal of Writ Petition, SLP (C), Review Petition and Curative Petition, the case attained legal finality by the Highest Court of Land. During the hearing of Contempt Petition on 15.5.2014, the counsel for Respondents informed that the CAT verdict dated 1.11.2011 will be implemented qua the petitioners of OA 655/2010.Para 3 of the Judgment dated 15.5.2014 is reproduced below : 3.In view of the above, we are of the view that no purpose would be served by keeping this matter pending and it would be appropriate to dispose of the matter with direction to the respondents to implement the directions of the Tribunal expeditiously, preferably within three months Accordingly, OM dated 26.8.2014 was issued. The compliance report is yet to be submitted by the Respondent.
13	CAT PR Bench Delhi	MA 3857/2014 M.A./194/2015 & Others	S/Shri A.Rajagopalan Dr. S.M.GovilAshok Kumar Vs UOI	09.04.2015	Earlier, the Govt. issued OM 28.1.2013 effective from 24.9.2012 for stepping up of pension to the level of Correct Minimum Revised Pension based on Cabinet Approval, even when the Writ Petition filed by DOP&PW was pending before Hon. HC Delhi, the above OM dated 28.1.2013 was issued and arrears from 24.9.2012 onwards only were paid. On dismissal of Writ Petition, SLP, Review Petition, Curative Petition, etc., the CAT verdict 1.11.2011 attained legal finality by the Highest Court of Land. During the contempt petition hearing on 15.5.2014 the CAT PR Bench disposed of the matter on hearing the Respondent’s decision to implement the CAT Order dated 1.11.2011 qua petitioners of OA 655/2010. Five Misc. Applications have been filed by non-litigant pre-2006 pensioners seeking arrears from 1.1.2006 onwards.
14	Supreme Court	SLP (Civil)19784 of 2013 with SLP(C)CC 12122,12366,1 2373,13325 & 14816.	Haryana Viduat Prasaran Nigam Ltd & Ors Vs R K Agarwal and Ors	DOJ 28.10.13	This SLP is againsst Punjab and Haryana High Court Judgment in case of CWP No. 19641 of 2009 R K Agarwal &0rs. Vs. HVPN Ltd & Ors. dated 21.12.2012. Hearing took place wheein Haryana Advocate pleaded about Haryana Regulations for Pensioners and about financial implications which Respondents Advocate opposed. Court was not impressed but allowed them to put up their arguments in writing for orders before next hearing which was fixed for 28.10.2013 when following orders were passed : Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners seeks permission to withdraw the special leave petitions with liberty to approach the High Court. Permission is granted. Consequently, the special leave petitions are dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty as aforesaid.
15	Supreme Court	SLP(C)CCNo.18339 -341 of 2013 converted to SLPC 36148-50/2013 (Now clubbed with CA No. 8875-76 / 2011 and other CAs. See item 8 above)	UOI Vs DLVhora & Ors.	DOJ17.03.2015	The SLPs alongwith 4 SLPs relating to civilian pensioners and about 44 Civil Appeals relating to military pensioners will be heard on only Tuesday (which is a Non-Misc. Day for HSC cases). The case came up for hearing on 17.2.2015 first and then adjourned to 20.2.2015. HSC appears to have raised issue of clubbing of so many cases and sought clarification about it. As sought by the Govt. Advocate, time is granted and next date of hearing is 17.3.2015.On 17.03.2015 Hon.ble Supreme Court passed following order : Order . 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.
16	SupremeCourt	ContemptPetition (Civil) No. 328 of 2013	N.K. Nair &Anr. Vs Shashikant Sharma & Ors.	30.03.15	While implementing 4th CPC Report pay of Army , Navy and AF Officers upto Brigadier level and equivalent, was fixed without adding Rank Pay. Hon.le Supreme Court vide Judgment dated 4.9.12 had directed for refixation of their pay after adding the Rank Pay and arrears paid accordingly. MOD issued orders on 27.12.12 for implementation of the said Judgment. CP(C) 328 of 2013 has been preferred in Supreme Court with plea that (1) Judgment should be implemented w.e.f. 1.1.1986 and not as on 1.1.1986,(2) Minimum of Pay in Integrated Pay Scale for each Rank of officers given in SAI 1/S/87 for Amy and equivaalent officers in Navy and AF should also be raised,(3) Maximum of Integratred Pay scale i.e. 5,100 should also be raised and (4) Refixation of revised pay on 1.1.1996 (5th CPC) and 1.1.2006 (6th CPC) should be done again on the basis of law set by the above mentioned Judgment of the Apex Court, now, meaning thereby, that, the revised pay should be refixed by adding into existing pay the admissible component of Rank Pay or MSP, as the case may be and,payment of arrears be made,accordingly. Further, it is learnt that the Attorney General for India, when Govt. sought his advice, has advised, after due consideration of the pleas in the light of Apex Court Judgment to agree to plea (1) and (4) and not to agree for (2) and (3). Heard on 15.11.13 and notices issued to alleged contemptners to appear in person on next date of hearing.On 17.2.14 Court heard the case, none of the Respondents appeared but their Advocate, SG, sought time for submitting Counter Court allowed two weeks time.On 10.03.14 Advocate on record for petitioners sought time for submitting Rejoinder Affidavit and Court allowed two weeks time. On 31.03.14 HSC heard and passed following orders : In light of the rival submission as above, let an application be made by the petitioners for impleadment of the present Defence Secretary and Controller General of Defence Accounts. The application may be listed for consideration as and when made. Rejoinder Affidavit has not been submitted by the Petitioners till 07.03.14 as mentioned in Office Report submitted by Asst. Registrar on 07.03.14. Heard on 3103.14 when Court passed following order : 5. In light of the rival submission as above, let an application be made by the petitioners for impleadment of the present Defence Secretary and Controller General of Defence Accounts. 6. The application may be listed for consideration as and when made.
17	Supreme Court	CurativePetition No. 126 of 2014	UOI VsCGSAGs29 Pensioners Association	DOJ30.04.2014	This Curative Petition was against dismissal of Review Petition No. 2492 of 2013. The five Judgme Bench of hon.ble Supreme Court presided over by the hon.ble CJI himself, dismissed this petition on 30.04.2014 stating that no case was made out within the parameters indicated in the decision of this Court in case of Rupa Ashok Hurra and Ashok Hurra reported in 2002(4)SCC 388
18	Supreme Court	SLP(C) 19784SLP (C) CC 12122, 12366, 12373, 13325, 14816, all of 2013.	H V P N LVs. R K Agarwal and Other 5 Respondents	DOJ28.10.13	These SLPs (along with applications for condoning the delay) are against P&H High Court Judgments granting Modified Parity to Haryana State Govt. Pensioners.Heard on 18.10.13. Hon.ble Court asked UOI Advocate to submit written statement before next hearing. Case was heard on 28.10.13 and following order were passed : Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners seeks permission to withdraw the special leave petitions with liberty to approach the High Court. Permission is granted. Consequently, the special leave petitions are dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty as aforesaid.
19	Supreme Court	SLP (C) CC 2001-2002/2015	UOI (Secretary, DOP&PW)vs Shri K.Venugopalan Nair	DOJ12.02.2015	The Pensioner Shri K.Venugopalan Nair (S-26) sought modified parity based Minimum Revised Pension w.e.f. 1.1.2006 and the CAT Ernakulam Bench allowed the OA.The Hon. HC, Kerala vide common Judgment dated 23.1.2014 (S.shri P.K.Barghavan Pillai’s full MRP for Pro-rata pensioner case and Shri K.Venugopalan Nair’s case) upheld the verdict of CAT Ernakulam. UOI represented by Secretary, DOP&PW filed SLPs only in the case of Shri K.Venugopalan Nair against the aforesaid common judgment of Hon. HC Kerala, in HSC. The HSC on 12.2.2015 dismissed the Special Leave Petitions on merits.
20	SupremeCourt	SLP(C) 33864of 2013	U.O.I,SECRETARY,MIN OF COMMUNICAT ION&ORS Vs RAM KISHAN PANIPAT	DOJ28.10.13	Heard on 28.10.13. Hon.ble Supreme Court passed following order : We are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the High Court.Consequently,the special leave petition is dismissed. However, the petitioners are at liberty to raise all points before the Tribunal as and when the appeal, including the contempt petition is preferred.
21	CAT /Chandigarh	Con.Pet.No.84 / 2013	Atma Singh VsU.O.I., Secret.,DOP and Secret. Comunication	CP discharged.	Modified parity case. CAT/Chandigarh in OANo. 44/HR/2012 gave judgment directing UOI to fix revised pension in terms Resolution dated 29.8.2008 but UOI preferred CWP 22510/2012 in P&H HC and the same was disallowed.UOI then preferred SLP(C) CC 13280 / 2013, which HSC dismissed on 29.7.2013, alongwith SLP(C) 23055, which was against CGSAGs29 Pensioners Association. Contempt Petition No. 84/2013 has been filed against UOI, Sec. /DOP and Sec. / Coomunicastion. for their failure in implementing CAT/Ch. directions, even when Review Petition has also been dismissed. Now, the Contempt Petition is discharged with the issue of Provisional implementation order to Shri Atma Singh.
22	P & H HighCourt	EA 35 /2013 inCWP 3452/2010	O P Kapur&Ors Vs State of Haryana & Ors	DOJ 14.03.14	In CWP 3452 P&H HC on 21.12.2012 had directed Haryana Govt. to refix pension giving modifed parity and pay arrears thereto within two months or pay arrears with 9 % interest after 1.3.2013. Haryana Govt. preferred SLPC 19784/2013 which was dismissed as withdrawn by the hon.ble Supreme Court on 28.10.2013.Haryana Govt. then filed a Reviw Application in P&H HC to review the Order dated 21.12.2012 despite the affirming order by the hon.ble Supreme Court, which was dismissed on 31.01.2013. During the hearing of EA 35/2013 on 26.02.2014 the P&H HC has passed following orders : “It is made clear that in case necessary steps are not initiated and amount is not disbursed to the applicants/petitioners before the next date of hearing, this Court may be constrained to call the official respondents in Court or order may be passed to attach salaries of the Officers concerned.” During hearing on 14.03.2014 Govt. Advocate informed the Court that the PPOs of Petitioners have been revised and orders for payment of arrears of revised pension w.e.f. 1.1.2006, along with 9 % interest thereon, have beenissued.
23	CAT PR Bench Delhi	OA 3262/2010	Dr. D.K.Jain, INCMRVs UOI	DOJ:19.04.2012	. The Judgment pronounced on 19.4.2012 observed that invoking (quashed) OM dated 3.10.2008 to reduce the applicant’s (pro-rata pensioner) pension is not legally sustainable. (Also Rule 49 of CCS (Pension) Rules, is only for fixing basic pension at the time of retirement, but not for revision based on CPC recommendation). However, the CAT PR Bench directed to revise the pension based on outcome of the Hon. HC decision in Writ Petitions filed in OA 655/2010 batch cases. With the dismissal of Writ Petitions, the CAT Order has been implemented. Certain clarifications in the implementation orders are pending.
24	Delhi HighCourt	WP(C)7828/2013	RetiredRailway Medical Officers Association & ors vs Union of India & ors.	DOJ 22.1.2015	This case is for payment of N.P.A. to Pre 2006 retirees. Heard on 11.12.13. Petitioners did not press for stay. Court accordingly did not grant stay but allowed Petition to be heard. While disposing off the case, the Hon. HC Delhi ordered on 22.1.2015 as follows:“Dr. Rakesh Gosain, counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that the HSC vide its decision dated 27.11.2013 in Civil Appeals No.10640-46/2013 in Dr. K.C. Bajaj and Ors. V. Union of India and Ors., has given directions to the respondents to recalculate the pensions payable to the appellants therein by adding the element of NPA after setting aside and quashing the O.M. dated 17.12.1998 and orders passed to the contrary by the learned Tribunal as also by this Court.The counsel further submits that now the issue is no more res integra and therefore, the petitioners are also entitled to the benefit of NPA which will add to their pension amount. Mr.Deepak Jain, the counsel who appears on behalf of the Railway Board, submits that vide a recent decision taken by the Railway Board dated 21.1.2015, a decision has been taken in favour of one Dr. Suresh Chandra Gupta post his retirement to extend the said benefit of NPA. Taking into consideration the said decision taken by the Ministry of Railways dated 21.1.2015 and the judgment of the Apex Court, we are of the view that these railway Doctors who are pre or post retiree employees of 1996 are entitled to the benefit of said NPA for calculation of their pension and therefore, we direct the respondents to recalculate the pension payable to members of the petitioner association adding the benefit of NPA and release the same in their favour within six months from the date of this order”.
25	CAT PR Bench Delhi	O.A/971/2012 O.A../4130/2013	SHRI S.N.DIXIT(RETIRED FROM MIN. OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS) VS UOI	DOJ:19.01.2015	The case is for placing S-21 to S-23 of Pay Band 3, to Pay Band-4. The case stands dismissed as per the CAT PR Bench Judgment pronounced on 19.1.2015.
26	CATMumbai Bench	OA 135/2012	Shri M.P.Sankaran&17others (AREWA) Vs UOI	Next Date of Hearing expected in May 2015	The case is for placing pre revised pay scalesS-21 to S-23 from Pay Band 3, to Pay Band-4.
27	CATPR Bench Delhi	O.A./1545/2014	Shri Shaji Abraham and others (Pro-rata Pensioners absorbed in TRAI)	24.03.2015	The case is for challenging para 5 of OM 28.1.2013 relating to proportionate reduction in Minimum Revised Pension. After one year from the date of filing of OA, the case came up for hearing for a very short time on 17.2.2015 and now adjourned to 24.3.2015.
28	CAT Bangalore BenchHon. HC Karnataka	OA 167/2010WP/26917/2012	Shri N.B.Bhatvs UOI UOI vs Shri N.B.Bhat	Awaited	The Tribunal Judgment dated 25.1.2012 decided as follows: 1. The learned counsels on both sides are present and the learned counsel for the applicant submits that this matter is squarely covered by the judgement of the Principal Bench in OA.655/2010. The learned counsel for the respondents fairly admits to this position and has no objection for the OA to be allowed. Hence, OA is allowed.The Dept of pension and AG Karnataka filed Writ Petition at HC Karnataka and the same is dismissed as withdrawn on 7.2.2013 with reserved right to petitioners to file Review Petition before CAT Bangalore Bench. Further details are awaited.
29	CAT Ernakulam BenchHon. HC Kerala Hon. HC Kerala	OA 747/2011OP(CAT) 1767/2012 RP 741/2014	Shri P.K.Bhargavan Pillai vs UOIUOI vs Shri P.K.Bhargavan Pillai UOI vs Shri P.K.Bharghavan Pillai	24.02.2015	In OA 747/2011 Shri P.K.Bhargavan Pillai (a pro-rata pensioner) vs UOI, the Hon. CAT Ernakulam Bench dated 23.1.2012 It is declared that the applicant is entitled to 50% of his minimum pay in the scale of pay of . 15,600/- and 50% of the grade pay attached to it as pension.The UOI filed Appeal in HC, Kerala.The HC Kerala dismissed the Appeal of UOI and upheld the verdict of CAT Ernakulam Bench. By virtue of this, a pro-rata pensioner irrespective of his qualifying service at the time of retirement, is entitled for full Minimum Revised Pension without any proportionate reduction in Pension. The Govt. filed Review Petition and it was listed for hearing on 10.2.2015. THE REVIEW PETITION IS DISMISSED ON 24.2.2015
30	CAT Bangalore BenchHon. HC Karnataka	OA 231/2012WP-49080-82/2013	Shri G.R. Parthasarathy vs UOIUOI vs Shri G.R. Parthasarathy	Implementation Orders Awaited	The CAT Bangalore Bench allowed OA 231/2012 on the basis of CAT PB Order 1.11.2011 which quashed OM 11.2.2009 and thereby upgraded GP applicable for pre-revised scale is admissible for pre-2006 pensioners concerned. The Writ Petitions disposed of with a direction to comply with CAT Order dated 8.3.2013 granting upgraded grade pay of pre-revised scale w.e.f. 1.1.2006 if the pending SLPs at HSC are dismissed. AS PER ACTION TAKEN REPORT DT. 3.2.2015 OF PREVIOUS SCOVA MEETING THE MATTER HAS BEEN REFERRED TO DEPT. OF EXPENDITURE ON 17.1.2015.
31	CAT PR Bench Delhi	OA 2461/2012REVIEW APPEAL CP 171/2014	Shri R.C.Garg vsUOI UOI vs Shri R.C.Garg Shri R.C.Garg vs UOI	19.07.2015	Extend the benefits of enhanced Special Pay of Rs. 4000/- (50% for pension purpose) w.e.f.1.1.2006. Contempt Petition for implementation of Tribunal’s Order dated 30.7.2013 has been filed by Shri R.C.Garg and the same is listed for hearing on 2.2.2015.(1) The Judgment pronounced on 30.7.2013 directed Respondents to extend the benefits of enhanced Special Pay of Rs. 4000/- to the applicants as have been recommended as per the CCS (Pay) Rules, 2008 w.e.f. 01.01.2006 and consequently revise their pension by taking full pension (50%) which is granted upon 20 years of completed service for post 2006 retirees and bring them at par with the post 2006 retirees with prospective effect of 01.01.2006. (2) Review Appeal by DOP dismissed on 7.1.2015 mainly based on CAT Judgment 20.11.2014 in S-30 Pensioners case for full parity. The Contempt Petition filed by Shri R.C.Garg is listed for hearing on 2.2.2015. Now the same stands adjourned to 3.3.2015 and now the next date of hearing is 19.07.2015
32	CATErnakulam Bench Hon. HC Kerala	OA 579/2013OP (CAT) No.120/2014	Shri T.K.Radha-krishna PillaiVs UOI UOI Vs Shri T.K.R.Pillai	SLP under proposal	The applicant took voluntary retirement as Inspector of Central Excise on 31.12.2000. He had a total service of 25 years, 03 months and 05 days including the weightage of 05 years. At the time of his retirement his pay scale was Rs. 6500-10500. According to him, the corresponding pay band as per CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 was Rs. 9300-34800 with Grade Pay of Rs. 4600/- and the minimum pay in the pay band of Rs. 9300-34800 in respect of those who were in the pay scale of Rs. 6500-10500 is Rs. 12090/-The Judgment dated 31.1.2014 ordered that a pensioner is entitled to 50% of the minimum of the pay in pay band plus grade pay of the post from which he retired. Hence the O.A is allowed The respondents are directed to issue revised Pension Payment Order to the applicant specifying the pension on the basis of Annexure A4 and A6 and para 4.2 of Annexure A3 OM dated 01.09.2008 i.e., 50% of the minimum of the pay in the pay band plus grade pay of Inspector of Central Excise, which is Rs. 12090 Rs. 4600 GP with effect from 01.01.2006 The OP(CAT) No.120/2014 was dismissed by Hon. HC Kerala on 23.6.2014. The implementation orders were issued to the pensioner. SLP under proposal.
33	CAT Ernakulam BenchHon. HC Kerala	OA 715/2012OP (CAT) No.8/2014	Shri M.O.InasuVs UOI UOI Vs Shri M.O.Inasu	Provisional Pension orders issued	SHRI INASU RETIRED ON 31.10.2002 WITH 26 YEARS AND 5 MONTHS QUALIFYING SERVICE FROM CENTRAL EXCISE COCHIN. THE OA FILED BY HIM WAS ALLOWED ON 16.8.2013. THE GOVT. APPEALED AGAINST THE JUDGMENT. THE HON. HIGH COURT OF KERALA DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF GOVT. ON 7.1.2014.THE COURT ORDERS HAVE BEEN COMPLIED WITH BY ISSUING ORDER DATED 13.3.2014 GRANTING FULL MINIMUM REVISED PENSION RS.7215 APPLICABLE FOR PRE-REVISED SCALE RS.5500-9000 FROM WHICH SHRI INASU RETIRED. Subsequently, a letter was issued in May 2014 stating that the above Order is subject to future WP/SLP being filed against the Judgment. It is learnt that SLP is awaiting admission.
34	Hon. HC Madras	W.P.No.11739 of 2007 (T)	Shri N.SubramanianVs Govt. of Tamilnadu	22.12.2014	The petitioner rendered more than 30 years of service when he retired voluntarily from service. After his retirement in 1983 the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.1108 Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department dated 18.12.1987 giving weightage of service for five years for the persons who were going on voluntary retirement. Thus, the Government has liberalised the pension scheme by giving certain benefits. The Government could have thought that by giving such weightage more persons could leave the service. The claim of the petitioner is that the weightage of 5 years in the case of voluntary retirement shall be given to him also and the monetary benefits could be given from the date of issuance of G.O.Ms.No.1108 PEXTRACTS OF JUDGMENT 22.12.2014 “4.Whenever the pension scheme is liberalized by giving certain benefits it has been well-settled by a catena of decisions including the decision of the Apex Court in D.S.Nakara V. Union of India reported in AIR 1983 SC 130 that the Government cannot arbitrarily fix the cut off date for the liberalised scheme of pension. 10. The facts are not in dispute. It is true that the petitioner retired on 10.07.1983 and the weightage of 5 years service along with the service rendered at the time of voluntary retirement was introducedonly by way of G.O.Ms.No.1108, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 18.12.1987 11.But it is well-settled law that whenever the Government introduces any scheme liberalising pension the same cannot be denied to the employees, who retired prior to the date of issuance of the G.O. But the Government could only say that the persons like the petitioner could get monetary benefits only from the date of issuance of G.O. 12.It has been held so categorically in D.S.Nakara Vs. Union of India, (AIR 1983 SC 130). . Ã‚Å¾5. ….. With the expanding horizons of socio-economic justice the socialist Republic and welfare State which we endeavour to set up and largely influenced by the fact that the old men who retired when emoluments were comparatively low and are exposed to vagaries of continuously rising prices the falling value of the rupee consequent upon inflationary inputs we are satisfied that by introducing an arbitrary eligibility criteria: ‘being in service and retiring subsequent to the specified date’ for being eligible for the liberalised pension scheme and thereby dividing a homogeneous class the classification being not based on any discernible rational principle and having been found wholly unrelated to the objects sought to be achieved by grant of liberalised pension and the eligibility criteria devised being thoroughly arbitrary we are of the view that the eligibility for liberalised pension scheme of being in service on the specified date and retiring subsequent to that date’ in impugned memoranda, Exhibits P-I and P-2, violates Art. 14 and is unconstitutional and is struck down. ……… Omitting the unconstitutional part it is declared that all pensioners governed by the 1972 Rules and Army Pension Regulations shall be entitled to pension as computed under the liberalised pension scheme from the specified date, irrespective of the date of retirement. Arrears of pension prior to the specified date as per fresh computation is not admissible. ….. 13.The same principle is also reiterated in the judgment of the Apex Court in V.Kasturi V. Managing Director State Bank of India, Bombay and Another AIIR 1999 SC 81. Ã‚Å¡1.If the person retiring is eligible for pension at the time of his retirement and if he survives till the time by subsequent amendment of the relevant pension scheme he would become eligible to get enhanced pension or would become eligible to get more pension as per the new formula of computation of pension subsequently brought into force, he would be entitled to get the benefit of the amended pension provision from the date of such order as he would be a member of the very same class of pensioners when the additional benefit is being conferred on all of them. In such a situation the additional benefit available to the same class of pensioners cannot be denied to him on the ground that he had retired prior to the date on which the aforesaid additional benefit was conferred on all the members of the same class of pensioners who had survived by the time the scheme granting additional benefit to these pensioners came into force. The line of decisions tracing their roots to the ratio of nakara’s case (supra) would cover this category of cases”. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed.
35	CATErnakulam Bench	OA	K.V.KurianVs UOI		Pre-2006 Pro-rata Pensioner’s case.Details awaited. Implementation Orders issued.