Alleging that the petitioners are entitled to have 50% of their basic pension treated as dearness pension to be granted with effect from 01.04.2004 as provided in Exts.P1 and P2, the petitioners have come up before this Court.
2. All the petitioners are Ex-service men; and all of them are re-employed and drawing their defence pension through the 4th respondent bank. The petitioners allege that by Ext.P1 order dated 01.03.2004, the Central Government directed that Dearness Relief/Allowance equal to 50% of the Basic Pension/Family Pension/Pay would be drawn as Dearness Pension/Family Pension/Dearness Pay as the case may be. They would allege that all the other Defence Pension Disbursing Authorities (Banks/Branches of the same Bank/Treasuries etc.) are accordingly granting the benefit to the defence pensioners, who are drawing the defence pension through them. The grievance of the petitioners is that in their case, the benefit was denied for the reason stated in Ext.P4. It is with this background, the petitioners have come up before this Court.
3. The 2nd respondent filed a detailed statement.
In para 5 of the statement, it is contended that as per the office records, the petitioners are not granted dearness relief or other allowance and they are only getting pension; and only those, who are getting Dearness Allowance, are entitled to get 50% of the present pension as Dearness Pension merged with the existing pension. According to them, the petitioners, who are re-employed, are not getting any Dearness Relief and are not entitled for Dearness Relief as on 01.04.2004. Therefore, they prayed for a dismissal of the writ petition.
4. Heard.
5. The case of the petitioners is that the Dearness Allowance equal to 50% of Basic Pension/Family Pension/Pay is treated as Dearness Pension/Family Pension/Pay and thereafter, 11% Dearness Allowance is payable on the Basic Pension/Basic Pay plus Dearness Pension/Family Pension/Dearness Pay. Therefore, according to them, Ext.P4 is not on valid consideration and is liable to be set aside.
6. It was argued by the learned Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent that as per Clause (ii) of Rule 55-A of Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, if the pensioner is re-employed under the Central or State Government or a Corporation/Company/Body/Bank under them in India or abroad including permanent absorption in such Corporation/Company/Body/Bank, he shall not be eligible to draw Dearness Relief on pension during the period of such re-employment. However, consequent to the recommendations of the Fifth Central Pay Commission, the Government of India decided to relax the application of the above Clause and Dearness Relief is admissible when pay on re-employment is fixed at the minimum ignoring the full pension. This decision is effective from 18.07.1997. However, it is subject to certain conditions. There shall be a certificate from the present employer indicating the following;
(1) the re-employed pensioner retired from a civil or military post in the Central Government was holding a post not included in classified as Group A or a post below the rank of Commissioned Officer in the armed forces;
(2) the entire amount of pension sanctioned by the Central Government was ignored in fixation of the pay on the re-employment; and
(3) the pay of the re-employed/absorbee was/is fixed at the minimum of the pay scale of the post in which he had/has been initially re-employed after his retirement from the Central Government.
A true copy of the said G0overnment of India decision is placed on board as Ext.R3(3). As per Ext.R3(3) decision, the pension disbursing authority shall release the Dearness Relief on pension to those re-employed pensioners, who submit the above mentioned certificate. This being the legal position, the re-employed pensioners, who are not eligible for Dearness Relief as per Ext.R3(3) Government of India decision, are not entitled to get the Dearness Relief equal to 50% of the present pension merged with the pension as Dearness Pension. Therefore, there need not be any hesitation to hold that the petitioners are not entitled to get any relief as prayed for in this writ petition and hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
In the result, the writ petition fails, and accordingly, dismissed.
Sd/-
A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, JUDGE bka/-