The petitioner seeks to challenge the communication of the second respondent dated 17.04.2002 and 25.03.2003 and while praying for the quashing of the above communications, also seeks a direction to the respondents to revise the pension/family pension of the petitioner.
2. The petitioner retired as Selection Grade Accounts Assistant from the service of the first respondent on 31.08.1996 and he is in receipt of pension. The petitioner's wife one Tmt.S.V.Vijayal was also employed in the first respondent Board as a Selection Grade Accounts Supervisor. She left her service under Voluntary Retirement Scheme on 01.05.1991 and died on 28.05.1997. After the death of the petitioner's wife, the petitioner was in receipt of family pension apart from the pension paid to him for the service rendered by him.
3. The scale of pay of the employees of the Board came to be revised w.e.f. 01.12.1996. The first respondent Board issued B.P.(Ch).No.208, dated 18.08.1998, revising the pension and pensionary benefits applicable to the existing pensioners who could not get the advantage of the pay revision w.e.f. 1.12.1996. The pension of the petitioner was revised as Rs.3,860/- and the family pension was also revised as Rs.3,716/-.
4. The grievance of the petitioner is that the revised pay applicable to Selection Grade Accounts Supervisor w.e.f 01.12.1996, came to be fixed as Rs.8100-275-13875, that is the petitioner's wife was holding the post of Selection Grade Accounts Supervisor at the time of her voluntary retirement and the revised family pension w.e.f. 01.04.1999 ought to have been fixed based on the said scale of pay, in which event, the petitioner would have got the family pension at the rate of Rs.4,050/- i.e. 50% of Rs.8,100/- from 01.04.1999 to 28.05.2004.
5. The petitioner made a claim on the above basis and sought for payment of arrears in his representation dated 18.01.2000 to the second respondent. The second respondent in his reply dated 09.05.2000, rejected the claim of the petitioner by stating that the petitioner's wife was not eligible for selection grade scale of pay ordered in B.P.(FB).No.106 dated 03.11.1994, since the petitioner's wife went on VRS on 30.04.1991 itself. The subsequent representation of the petitioner dated 07.07.2000 and 13.07.2000 was also rejected by the impugned communications dated 17.04.2002 and 25.03.2003. The writ petition has now been filed challenging the above proceedings.
6. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it is contended that the scale of pay of Selection Grade Accounts Supervisor came to be revised as under in para 6:-
"6..... (i) Revised Scale of Pay with effect from 01.12.1988 Rs.2120-80-2600-90-3230-100-3530
(ii) Revised Scale of Pay with effect from 01.12.1992 Rs.2150-85-2575-95-3050-105-3680
(iii) Revised Scale of Pay with effect from 01.12.1996 Rs.7225-225-12175......"
According to the respondents, in B.P.(FB).No.106, dated 03.11.1994, the revision of scale of pay applicable from 01.12.1992 came to be announced, though such revision was based on a settlement with the Employees Union and that the said Board Proceeding was not applicable to the petitioner's wife in as much as she voluntarily retired on 30.04.1991, while the revised scale of pay which came into effect on 01.12.1992, was not extended to those employees who retired prior to the said date. It is therefore contended that the scale of pay that was applicable to the petitioner's wife on the date of her voluntary retirement was the one which was given effect to on 01.12.1988 i.e. Rs.2120-80-2600-90-3230-100-3530 and that the corresponding revised scale of pay which came into being w.e.f. on 01.12.1996 was Rs.7225-225-12175.
7. It is also the contention of the respondents that the revision in the scale of pay applicable to Selection Grade Accounts Supervisor which came into being on 01.12.1992 viz., Rs.2150-85-2575-95-3050-105-3680 came to be revised on 01.12.1996 and the corresponding revised scale was Rs.8100-275-13875. It is pointed out that since the petitioner's wife was not in employment on 01.12.1992, the revised scale of pay of Rs.2,150/- was not applicable to her and consequently the subsequent revised scale of Rs.8100-275-13875, could not be applied to her for the purpose of either pension or family pension. It is further contended that the claim of the petitioner was rightly rejected by the proceedings impugned in the writ petition.
8. When this writ petition was heard on 02.03.2009, the petitioner appeared in person and filed his written submissions. There was no representation on behalf of the respondents. The writ petition is therefore being disposed of on merits.
9. I have considered the respective contentions of the parties in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the written submissions and the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents as well as the various material documents placed before the Court. I also perused B.P.(FB) No.106 dated 03.11.1994, B.P.(Ch) No.208 dated 18.08.1998 and B.P.(Ch) No.250 dated 05.10.1999.
10. In B.P.(FB) No.106, dated 03.11.1994, the existing scale of pay of seven categories starting from Vehicle Helper to Superintendent/Administrative and Technical Branches including Accounts Supervisor and other existing selection grade scales are revised. The selection grade scale have been set out in paragraph 3 of the said proceedings, where it is specifically mentioned that in the case of employees who had already moved to selection grade posts prior to 01.12.1992, the revised selection grade scale of pay indicated in the said proceedings should be made applicable as per the pay fixation regulations of the Board.
11. In B.P.(Ch) No.208 dated 18.08.1998, clause 3(i) of the said Board Proceedings specifically mention that the basic pay as on 01.01.1996, 02.01.1996, 03.01.1996.....01.12.1996 of the existing pensioners who have not had the advantage of revision of pay with effect from 01.12.1996 and who retired from posts on standard pay scales and family pensioners will be allowed increase in pension at 40% of basic pension.
12. In B.P.(Ch)No.250, dated 05.10.1999, the first respondent after making a reference to B.P.(Ch).No.208, dated 18.08.1998, as well as after considering the demands of the Unions/Associations of the pensioners of Electricity Board passed orders to the effect that in the case of family pension granted prior to 01.12.1996, revised family pension should be calculated at the rate of 30% of the minimum of the revised time scale of pay introduced with effect from 01.12.1996 for the post last held by the concerned pensioner / deceased Board employee. It is further ordered that for selection grade employee, the minimum of the time scale of pay should be the minimum of the scale of pay applicable to the selection grade / special grade scale of the respective post last held by the Board employee. It is further held that the revised pension / family pension should be given effect to from 01.04.1999.
13. From a reading of the above three Board Proceedings, it transpires that the Board came forward to extend the benefit of revised scales of pay on and after 01.12.1996, to such of those pensioners / family pensioners who did not have the benefit of such revision from that date viz., 01.12.1996. A perusal of the petitioner's affidavit discloses that the claim for applicability of the revised scale of pay of Rs.8100-275-13875 was based on B.P.(FB).No.106, dated 03.11.1994. As far as the applicability of the said Board Proceedings is concerned, paragraph 3 of the said B.P. specifically states that the revision of scales of pay of selection grade employees was applicable to those who moved to selection grade post prior to 01.12.1992, and also remained in the said post on 01.12.1992 for whom alone the revised scale of Rs.2475-95-3045-105-4200 was made applicable. In order to apply B.P.(FB)No.106, dated 03.11.1994, the employee in the selection grade should have already moved to such selection grade post prior to 01.12.1992 and should have been receiving the revised selection grade scale on 01.12.1992 for whom alone the benefit of revised scale was extended. As far as B.P.(Ch).No.208, dated 18.08.1998 and B.P.(Ch).No.250, dated 05.10.1999 is concerned, the same does not talk of the applicability of the relevant revised scale of pay.
14. In fact in the case of the petitioner, B.P.(FB) No.106, dated 03.11.1994 is more relevant than B.P.(Ch).No.208 dated 18.08.1998 and B.P.(Ch).No.250 dated 05.10.1999. If based on the application of B.P.(FB) No.106, dated 03.11.1994, the petitioner's wife was entitled for the pre-revised scale of Rs.2475-95-3045-105-4200, by virtue of applicability of B.P.(Ch.)Nos.208 and 250, the corresponding revised scale of pay w.e.f 01.12.1996 would automatically come into play. As pointed out earlier, the first conditions that is required to be satisfied as set out in paragraph 3 of B.P.(FB) No.106, dated 03.11.1994 was that the petitioner's wife should have moved to the Selection Grade Accounts Supervisor post prior to 01.12.1992. In so far as the said condition is concerned, there is no difficulty in accepting the stand of the petitioner, since, as on 30.04.1991, i.e. the date of the voluntary retirement of the petitioner's wife she had already moved into the post of Selection Grade Accounts Supervisor.
15. The next condition to be satisfied is that she should have remained in the selection grade scale as on 01.12.1992, as far as the petitioner's wife was concerned, she had voluntarily retired on 30.04.1991 and therefore there was no question of the petitioner's wife continue to remain in the selection grade scale on 01.12.1992. Therefore, there was no occasion for the respondent Board to revise the scale of pay of the petitioner's wife in the selection grade from the pre-existing scale of Rs.2150-2375-3050-3680 to 2475-3045-4200. Significantly, after 01.12.1988, the Selection Grade Accounts Supervisor scale which was Rs.2120-2600-3230-3530 came to be revised as Rs.7225-225-12175 w.e.f 01.12.1996, while the revised scale of pay of Rs.2475-3045-4200 came to be revised as Rs.8100-275-13875. Since the petitioner's wife had never moved to the subsequent revision which came into effect from 01.12.1992 viz., Rs.2150-2575-3050-3680 and at the time of her voluntary retirement, she was drawing her pay in the scale of Rs.2120-2600-3230-3530, the applicable revised scale of pay as from 01.12.1996 happened to be Rs.7225-225-12175 and therefore the family pension payable to the petitioner on 01.04.1999 came to be rightly fixed at Rs.3,716/-.
16. Having regard to the said position, I do not find any flaw in the rate of family pension granted to the petitioner. The contention of the petitioner that the revised scale of pay of Rs.8100-275-13875 based on B.P.(FB)No.106, dated 03.11.1994 would apply to his wife cannot be accepted as she did not remain in the service as on 01.12.1992 as stipulated in the said proceedings.
17. I therefore do not find any scope to interfere with the proceedings impugned in this writ petition. The writ petition therefore fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.
kk To
1. The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, 800, Anna Salai, Chennai 2.
2. The Chief Internal Audit Officer, Board Office, Audit Branch, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, First Floor, 800, Anna Salai, Chennai 2