Court’s Decision
The Delhi High Court set aside the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal which had dismissed the petitioner’s claim for pension revision. The Court held that the clarificatory Office Memorandums (OMs) of 2008, which diluted the Cabinet-approved formula under the 6th Central Pay Commission (CPC), were unauthorized and stood quashed by earlier judicial pronouncements. The Court directed the respondents to re-fix the pension/family pension strictly in accordance with the fitment table annexed with the OM dated 30.08.2008, release arrears along with 6% interest within eight weeks, and pay costs of ₹20,000 to the petitioner
Facts
The petitioner’s husband retired as an Architect in 2002 after 38 years of service with a basic salary of ₹13,575. His pension was initially fixed at ₹6,772 per month. With the implementation of the 6th CPC from 2006, the government issued OMs revising pay and pension structures. According to the concordance table, his basic pay translated to ₹25,250 + GP 6,600 = ₹31,850, entitling him to a pension of ₹15,925 per month (50% of the notional pay).
However, by clarifications dated 01.09.2008 and 03.10.2008, the formula was altered to calculate pension as 50% of the minimum of the pay band plus grade pay, ignoring the pre-revised scale. Consequently, the petitioner’s pension was revised to only ₹15,305 per month. Multiple representations, an earlier OA, and writ petitions were filed, but the respondents rejected the claim. The Tribunal eventually dismissed the OA in 2021, leading to the present writ petition.
Issues
- Whether the 2008 clarifications altering the pension formula had legal validity.
- Whether the petitioner, as a pre-2006 retiree, was entitled to pension re-fixation at 50% of ₹31,850, i.e., ₹15,925 per month from 01.01.2006 to 31.12.2015.
- Whether denial of such re-fixation was in violation of binding precedents.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner argued that the 03.10.2008 clarification was issued without Cabinet approval and illegally diluted the formula approved by Resolution dated 29.08.2008 and OM dated 30.08.2008. The clarification led to discriminatory treatment of pre-2006 retirees vis-à-vis post-2006 retirees.
Reliance was placed on Central Government SAG (S-29) Pensioners Association v. Union of India (CAT, 2011), where the Tribunal quashed the very clarifications. This decision was upheld by the Delhi High Court in Union of India v. Central Govt. SAG (2013), Punjab & Haryana High Court in R.K. Aggarwal v. State of Haryana (2012), and by the Supreme Court when SLPs were dismissed.
The petitioner further referred to All India S-30 Pensioners Association v. Union of India (2024 DHC) and Union of India v. Usha (2024 DHC), both affirming entitlement of pre-2006 retirees to pension revision. Despite this, the respondents continued to deny the relief, showing deliberate non-compliance.
Respondent’s Arguments
The respondents contended that the petitioner was already receiving ₹15,305 from 01.01.2006, which was higher than the minimum guaranteed pension of ₹11,100 as per the OMs. They argued that stepping-up was not automatic and that notional fixation under 6th CPC was only an intermediate stage for 7th CPC calculation, not applicable on an actual basis.
They relied on the Tribunal’s interpretation and maintained that the petitioner’s claim lacked merit.
Analysis of the Law
The Court examined the sequence of OMs and clarifications. It noted that the OM dated 30.08.2008 implemented the Cabinet-approved 6th CPC formula of 50% of the sum of minimum pay in the pay band and grade pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale. However, clarificatory OMs of October 2008 altered this formula to mean only 50% of the minimum of the pay band, irrespective of the pre-revised scale.
The Court observed that such clarifications, issued without Cabinet approval, effectively amended the resolution and were thus invalid. The principle of modified parity under Rule 34 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 required consideration of the pre-revised scale and actual emoluments at retirement. Ignoring this would lead to arbitrary and unjust results.
Precedent Analysis
- CAT Full Bench, 2011 (S-29 Pensioners case): Quashed the 03.10.2008 and 14.10.2008 clarifications, holding they impermissibly altered Cabinet-approved resolutions.
- Punjab & Haryana High Court in R.K. Aggarwal (2012): Mandated fixation as per 29.08.2008 resolution and directed arrears with 9% interest.
- Delhi High Court in Union of India v. Central Govt. SAG (2013): Affirmed CAT ruling; extended applicability from 01.01.2006 instead of 24.09.2012.
- Supreme Court (2013 & 2015): Dismissed SLPs, thereby affirming the above rulings.
- All India S-30 Pensioners Association (2024 DHC): Applied same principle to S-30 retirees.
- Union of India v. Usha (2024 DHC): Reiterated entitlement of pension re-fixation for similarly placed retirees.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court emphasized that once the Government accepted the principle of modified parity, it could not unilaterally dilute it through clarifications. The OMs of 2008 stood judicially quashed. The respondents’ stand that notional fixation was irrelevant on actual basis was inconsistent with precedents and administrative instructions themselves.
The Court concluded that the petitioner’s pension ought to have been revised to 50% of ₹31,850 (₹15,925) from 01.01.2006. By granting only ₹15,305, the respondents acted contrary to binding precedent and their statutory duty.
Conclusion
The Tribunal’s order was set aside. The Court directed the respondents to re-fix the petitioner’s pension as per the 30.08.2008 OM, pay arrears with 6% interest within eight weeks, and costs of ₹20,000. The petition was allowed.
Implications
This ruling reinforces that government clarifications cannot override Cabinet-approved resolutions. It ensures parity between pre-2006 and post-2006 retirees, upholding constitutional guarantees of equality and non-discrimination. The judgment reaffirms judicial intolerance towards executive attempts to dilute statutory benefits under the guise of “clarifications.”
FAQs
Q1. What was the main issue in this case?
The dispute concerned whether pre-2006 retirees were entitled to pension revision strictly under the 6th CPC formula, or whether diluted clarifications of 2008 applied.
Q2. What did the Court hold regarding clarifications?
The Court held that clarificatory OMs of 2008 were unauthorized, quashed by earlier rulings, and could not override the Cabinet-approved formula under the 6th CPC.
Q3. What relief did the petitioner receive?
The Court ordered re-fixation of pension at 50% of ₹31,850 (₹15,925), arrears with 6% interest from 2006, and ₹20,000 costs.
