K.M. Joseph, J Petitioners in all the cases challenge the orders passed by the Tribunal granting relief to the respondents, which reads as follows: “(a) 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.
(b) Consequently, it is declared that Annexure A2 and Annexure A3 being erroneous are liable to be quashed and set aside. It is accordingly ordered.”
We treat O.P.1767/12 as the leading case.
2. The applicants before the Tribunal retired prior to 01.01.2006. They were granted pension in terms of Annexure-1 which inter alia provides that pension would in no case be lower than 50% of the minimum of the pay in the pay band plus grade pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which pensioner had retired. While so, Annexure -A2 dated 27.1.2011 was issued whereby the pension was reduced. Annexure A3 was issued. It is after moving the representation against reduction, OP(CAT) Nos.1767/12, 1872/12 & 236/13 2 remedies were sought against the reduction in pension.
3. When these matter was taken up today, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents in O.P.1767/12 the issue at hand stands covered by Judgment of this court, which is produced as Ext.R1(A). It is pointed out that this court followed the judgment of the Delhi High Court which in turn had followed the judgment of Panjab & Hariyana High Court on the very same issue. It is also pointed out that the judgment of Punjab and Hariyana High Court was challenged before the Apex Court and special leave petition was rejected.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to establish before us any reason why we should not follow the judgment of this court, which is produced as Ext.R1(A). In such circumstances, we see no reason to take a different view. These petitions will stand dismissed.
Sd/-
K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE sou.
Sd/-
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.
// True copy //