Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India and the learned Standing Counsel for the 5th respondent, apart from perusing the record. Since the issue lies in a narrow compass, this Court proposes to dispose of the writ petition at the admission stage itself. 2. Briefly stated, the petitioner, a Central Government Civil Pensioner, retired on 30.06.1984 from the Central Reserve Police Force. The record reveals that he joined the service as an LDC on 07.10.1961 and voluntarily retired as Subedar Major (Senior Stenographer), thus putting in a total service of 22 years, 8 months and 24 days. Having been granted monthly pension, with periodic revisions in the pay scales, presently the petitioner is drawing a pension of `5970/-
3. In course of time, the 4th respondent issued proceeding dated 01.09.2008 based on the Government of India Resolution dated 29.08.2008, mandating that the revised pension, in no case, shall be lower than fifty percent of the minimum of the pay in the pay band plus the Grade Pay corresponding to the pre revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired.
4. Based on Ext.P6 Fitment Table, the minimum pay in the pay band plus grade pay would be ` 18750/-, 50% of which shall come to ` 9375/-. Accordingly, the petitioner is said to have made a representation in Ext.P8 to the respondent authorities, who in turn issued Ext.P9 reply holding that the pension of the petitioner has been revised correctly as per GOI Notifications dated 01.09.2008 and 14.10.2008.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the very order of the Government of India, based on which the petitioner's pension had been revised, stood quashed by the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 655 of 2010. The record further reveals that when challenge is laid against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal in W.P.(C) No. 1535 of 2012, a learned Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi dismissed the said writ petition. It appears that the other High Courts as well took the same line and held that the Government of India Proceeding dated 01.09.2008 could not be sustained. Eventually, when the matter was taken from the High Court of Delhi to the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it appears that SLA(C) No. 13280 of 2013 and SLP(C) No. 12355 of 2013 were also dismissed by the Supreme Court on 29.07.2013.
6. In fact, a learned Division Bench of this Court through its judgment dated 07.01.2014 in O.P (CAT) No. 4 of 2014 took the same view as had been taken by the High Court of Delhi and dismissed the challenge laid by the Union of India and certain Central Government Departments.
7. In the facts and circumstances, since the very substratum i.e., G.O.I Notification dated 01.09.2008, which formed basis for the revision of the petitioner's pension as had been indicated in Ext.P9, stood nullified through authoritative pronouncements, it is imperative on the part of the respondent authorities to revise the pension of the petitioner in terms of Ext.P6 Fitment Table.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed directing the respondent authorities to revise the pension of the petitioner with effect from 01.01.2006 duly taking into account Ext.P6 Fitment Table as well as the resolution of the 4th respondent in O.M(F) No. 38/37/08-P&PW(A) dated 01.09.2008. Needless to observe, given the fact that the petitioner is being a senior citizen, the respondent authorities shall complete the entire exercise of revising the pension of the petitioner at the earliest, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. No order as to costs.
sd/- DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JUDGE.
rv