Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 696 (CAL)

Chandrika Prosad Rai v. UNION OF INDIA

2010-06-25

I.P.MUKERJI

body2010
JUDGMENT:- I.P. MUKERJI, J. 1. By this writ, the writ petitioner wants implementation of the decision of the Ministry of Railways, contained in their letter dated 4th December 1997 to the General Manager of Railways, that inter alia the scale of pay of Group II Inspector was to be Rs.6500-200 to 10500. The writ petitioner wants payment of his pension in terms of the said circular. The writ petitioner was an inspector in the service of the railways in the post of inspector Group II. He retired on 30th June 1984. In implementation of the recommendation of the 5th Central Pay Commission, the Government of India by a decision dated 17th December 1998 decided that pension would not be lower than 50% of the minimum salary in the revised pay scale. Effect was to be given from 1st January 1996. The railways, revised their scale of pay for inspector Group II with effect from 4th December 1997. An earlier writ application was filed in this court, on the issue of pension to be received by the writ petitioner, which was disposed of on 12th December 2001, by directing the respondent railways to make a consideration of the case of the writ petitioner. In obedience to that order, the Chief Security Commissioner made a decision on 11th February 2002 saying that in accordance with the above circular dated 4th December 1997, as subsequently amended, the revised pay in that circular was given effect to from 10th October 1997 and not from any earlier date. The writ petitioner would not get any pensioney benefit from 1st January 1996. In my opinion, that is a perfectly reasonable decision in the way it is understood by me. That, the petitioner’s scale of pay would be deemed to be revised with effect from 10th October 1997 in the scale of Rs.6500-200 to 10500 and that he would be paid pension accordingly. But this particular decision has been challenged in this writ petition. It is also alleged that pension has not been paid according to the above circular and that it should be so paid. Matters have been made more complicated by the stand taken by the railways in the affidavit-in-opposition that the scale of pay was revised with effect from 10th October 1997. It is also alleged that pension has not been paid according to the above circular and that it should be so paid. Matters have been made more complicated by the stand taken by the railways in the affidavit-in-opposition that the scale of pay was revised with effect from 10th October 1997. In order to get pension under the said Central Government policy that scale of pay had to be enjoyed at the time the Central Government circular became effective, that is, 1st January 1996, it is submitted. This is a most unreasonable stand taken in the affidavit-in-opposition. Pension should be calculated according to the salary computed on the basis of the railway circular dated 4th December 1997, made effective from 10th October 1997. Revised pension in terms of such revised salary amount is to be paid from that particular date. 1st January 1996 decides the date from which a minimum of 50% of the salary has to be paid as pension according to the Central Government Policy. But that does not mean that if salary amount is recomputed later as has been done here with effect from 10th October 1997, minimum 50% pension will not be paid on the ground that as on 1st January 1996, there was no revised salary and thus, pension could not be revised. Even if salary was increased later, the pension computed, thereon, cannot be paid as it was not so payable as on 1st January 1996. That is a very preposterous interpretation of that particular policy. A minimum of 50% of the salary has to be paid as pension from the effective date and such amount can always vary with the salary on which pension is calculated. Therefore, this writ is partly allowed by directing the respondents to pay pension to the writ petitioner according to the said policy of the Central Government dated 4th December 1997, by revising the pension in accordance with the computation of salary according to such circular with effect from 10th October 1997. Current and arrear pension, if not paid, should be paid according to the above principle. All arrear pension if payable should also be paid accordingly within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order. For absolute clarity I say that no revised pension is payable before 10th October 1997 and such circular will have only prospective effect. All arrear pension if payable should also be paid accordingly within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order. For absolute clarity I say that no revised pension is payable before 10th October 1997 and such circular will have only prospective effect. Urgent certified photocopy of this judgment/ order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.