~~~~~~~~~~~ The respondents in Writ Petition No.19241 of 2005 are the appellants. The respondent herein filed the Writ Petition challenging Ext.P6 order passed by the appellants in pursuance to the directions of this Court contained in Ext.P4, judgment in W.P.(C) No.37223 of 2003. By the said order, the respondent claimed for higher pension was negatived by the appellants. This order having been set aside by the learned Single Judge. Thus appeal is filed. 2. The appellant, who joined Indian Navy as a Petty Officer, was retired from service on 31.12.1993, while working as a Chief Petty Officer. However, his pension was settled on the basis of his service as Petty Officer and this was sought to be justified on the ground that the same is more favourable to him. It was aggrieved by such fixation that the respondent filed a representation which came to be rejected by Ext.P6 order. From Ext.P4 judgment, we notice that the clarification to Ext.P5 to the effect that pension of all pre-1996 retiree Armed Forces W.A.No.2205/2009 2 Personnel were to be revised on the basis of the rank/group last held by the individual and the revised pay scale connected thereto, even if the rank/group held was for less than 10 months before retirement. The reading of Ext.P4 judgment shows that while disposing of the Writ Petition this Court had directed the appellants to consider the claim of the respondent for revision of his pensionary benefits duly adverting to the above clarification. However, while passing orders in compliance with the directions in the judgment, the appellants have overlooked the clarification relied on by this Court and it is on that basis the claim of the respondent for revised pension was negatived. This has been rightly faulted by the learned Single Judge and it is on that basis the Writ Petition has been allowed. We do not find any illegality in the view taken by the learned Single Judge. Appeal merits only dismissed and we do so.
Sd/-
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE.
Sd/- ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE.
ps/23/5/2014