M.M. Kumar, C.J. 1. The instant appeal under clause 12 of Letters Patent is directed against judgment and order dated 19.05.2011 rendered by the learned Single Judge of this Court, rejecting the claim made by the appellant that he was entitled to grant of pension/pensioner benefits with effect from 01.01.1996 on account of the fact that persons who have superannuated earlier than him, like Ved Parkash and Lekh Raj were drawing higher amount of pension. The Writ Court did not find any substance in the submissions made by the appellant and on fact it was found that Ved Parkash and Lekh Raj were drawing lesser amount of pension than the appellant. The view of the Writ Court is discernible from the following paras of the judgment which are set out below in extenso: "Heard. I have considered the matter. I have gone through the averments made in the petition and has also considered the reply submitted by the respondents. The fact that petitioner was appointed as LDC in 1 FOD w.e.f 10th May 1949 and superannuated from service w.e.f 31st December 1986, is not in dispute. It is also admitted that the petitioner was granted pension of Rs. 695/- w.e.f, 1st January, 1986 vide PPO No. C/AOC/3009/85. After retirement, he submitted an application on 13th September 1988, requesting the respondents for re-fixation of his pension under 5th Pay Commission. He was, however, informed vide letter dated 20th September, 1988 that his pension had already been revised vide PPO No. C/PRI/PCI/C/2375/87 and forwarded to Head Post office, Jammu Tawi vide letter dated 19th December 1987. Respondents state that petition's pay was again re-fixed on account of complex nature of duties at the rate of Rs. 600/- instead of Rs. 560/- under intimation to the petitioner vide letter dated 4th July. 1992. The pension was also revised at the rate of Rs. 827/- w.e.f, 1st January, 1986 vide PPO. No. C/AOC/Corr/403/92. There is no dispute over this fact, as the communications issued to the petitioner were not dispute by him at the relevant time and he accepted this position all along. He, however, submitted an application for fixation of his pension. He was informed vide letter dated 2nd June 1998, that his pension had already been revised. He submitted an appeal to MG AOC Central Command, Lucknow. He, however, submitted an application for fixation of his pension. He was informed vide letter dated 2nd June 1998, that his pension had already been revised. He submitted an appeal to MG AOC Central Command, Lucknow. In response to the petitioner's application, he was asked by the respondents to submit details of the persons who are getting more pension than him. The respondent considered the matter and found that Ved Parkash had been granted pension of Rs. 422/-w.e.f 1st February, 1985 whereas the petitioner had been granted pension of Rs. 582/- + Rs. 138 PP = Rs. 720/- vide PPO No. C/AOC/Corr/403/92. Thus, the petitioner was more beneficial in pension than said Ved Parkash. There was, therefore, no anomaly in this regard. As per the Government of India, Ministry of personnel Public Grievances Pension, Department of Pension & Welfare, New Delhi letter No. 45/10/98 PPW (A) dated 17th December, 1998, the petitioner's pension was revised as Rs. 2515 + Rs. 138 PP w.r.f 1.1.1996. The petitioner was not satisfied with it and he filed an application for revision of pension in the pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000 instead of Rs. 4500-7000, addressed to PCDA (P) Allahabad. The matter was examined and it had been found that pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000 is upgraded scale and same is admissible and same is admissible to those who were in service w.e.f 1.1.1996. The petitioner retired before the said date i.e, 1.1.1996, as such, as he was not entitled to the said scale. 2. Mrs. Surinder Kour, learned counsel of the appellant has drawn our attention to Office Memorandum no. 45/86 97-Pt.III dated 10.02.1998. According to the learned counsel the pension calculated was to be consolidated as on 1.1.1996, in accordance with the provisions of Office Memorandum no. 45/86/97-P&PW (A) - Pt-II dated 27.10.1997. In any case the consolidated full pension was not to be less than 50% of the minimum of the revised scale of pay introduced with effect from 01.01.1996 for the post last held by the concerned pensioner. The pension was treated to be the basic pension for purposes of future grant of Dearness Relief on pension. Likewise the basic family pension was to be calculated at not less than 30% of the minimum of the revised pay scale introduced with effect from 01.01.1996 for the post last held by the concerned pensioner/ deceased government servant. 3. The pension was treated to be the basic pension for purposes of future grant of Dearness Relief on pension. Likewise the basic family pension was to be calculated at not less than 30% of the minimum of the revised pay scale introduced with effect from 01.01.1996 for the post last held by the concerned pensioner/ deceased government servant. 3. According to the learned counsel the pay scale of the post last held by the appellant was revised to Rs. 5000-8000 which is evident from the recommendations made by the Commandant in favour of the appellant to PCDA ( Pension) Allahabad (Annexure A). Learned counsel has also placed reliance on the recommendations dated 15.09.2004 made by the Commandant to PCDA (Pension) on similar lines. 4. Mr. Piyush Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents could not dispute the aforesaid factual position and argued that the appellant had set up the case before the Writ Court which was confined to the argument that Ved Pakash and Lekh Raj, who superannuated earlier to the appellant, were drawing higher pension. The aforesaid claim made by the appellant was found without substance as both of them were found to have been paid the amount of pension which was less than that of the appellant. 5. In order to appreciate the contention raised by the appellant if would be profitable to refer to Office Memorandum No. 45/86/97-Pt.lll dated 10.02.1998. Same is set out below for facility of reference:- "F.No. 45/10/98-P&PW(A) Government of India Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions Department of Pension & Pensioners' Welfare, New Delhi, Dated 17 December, 1998 Subject:- Implementation of Government's decisions on the recommendations of the Fifth Central Pay Commission relating to retirement benefits. C. O.M. No. 45/86/97-Pt. Ill dated February, 10, 1998 4. (a) The last sentence of paragraph 2 may be substituted by the following: "The pension so calculated shall be consolidated as on 1st January, 1996 in accordance with the provisions contained in paragraph 4.1. of this Departments O. M. No. 45/86/97-P&PW (A)-Pt. II dated 27th October, 1997. Such consolidated full pension shall not, however, be less than 50 per cent of the minimum of the revised scale of pay introduced with effect from 1st January 1996 for the post last held by the concerned pensioner. of this Departments O. M. No. 45/86/97-P&PW (A)-Pt. II dated 27th October, 1997. Such consolidated full pension shall not, however, be less than 50 per cent of the minimum of the revised scale of pay introduced with effect from 1st January 1996 for the post last held by the concerned pensioner. However, such pension will be suitably reduced pro-rata, where the pensioner has less than the maximum required service for full pension as per the rule (Rule 49 of CCS (Pension) Rules 1972) applicable to the pensioner as on the date of his/her superannuation/ retirement and is no case it will be less than Rs.1275/ p.m." This pension shall be treated as the basic pension for the purpose of future grant of Dearness Relief on pension. (b) The second sentence of paragraph 3 may be substituted by the following: "This pension shall be consolidated as on 1st January 1996 in accordance with the provisions contained in paragraph 4.1 of this Department's O.M. No. 45/86/97-P&PW(A) Pt. II dated 27th October 1997. Such consolidated family pension shall not, however, be less than 30 per cent of the minimum of the revised scale of pay introduced with effect from 1st January 1996 for the post last held by the concerned pensioner/ deceased government servant." (c) The following clause may be inserted after the fifth sentence in paragraph 4: . "The basic family pension so calculated shall not be less than 30 per cent of the minimum of the revised scale of pay introduced with effect from 1st January 1996 for the post last held by the concerned pensioner/deceased government servant." 6. A perusal of the aforesaid Office Memorandum does not leave any manner of doubt that the pension has to be calculated as on 01.01.1996 in accordance with the provisions contained in para 4.1 of the O.M no. 45/86/97- P&PW (A) Pt. II dated 27.10.1997. The consolidated pension so calculated was not to be less than 50% of the minimum of the revised pay scale of pay introduced with effect from 01.01.1996 for the post last held by the concerned pensioner. The pension was to be treated as basic pension for the purposes of future grant of Dearness Relief on pension. II dated 27.10.1997. The consolidated pension so calculated was not to be less than 50% of the minimum of the revised pay scale of pay introduced with effect from 01.01.1996 for the post last held by the concerned pensioner. The pension was to be treated as basic pension for the purposes of future grant of Dearness Relief on pension. Likewise, in respect of family pension the basic family pension was calculated was to be not less than 30% of the minimum of the revised pay scale introduced with effect from 01.01.1996 for the post last held by the concerned pensioner/ deceased government servant. 7. In the present case it has not been disputed that the appellant superannuated as Superintendent Grade-II in l-FOD on 31.12.1985. His pension as on 01.01.1996 has to be calculated by applying the criteria already noticed above. The pay scale of the post of Superintendent Grade-II, which was the last post held by the appellant, was revised to Rs. 5000-8000 with effect from 01.01.1996. In fact the Commandant on 15.09.2004 (Annexure A) had made the recommendations on the aforesaid rationale. The recommendations made would also suggest calculations to be made on that basis. It would be pertinent to read the recommendations, which are set out below in exfenso:- "PCDA (Pension) G-I/C/AOC Allahabad. Revision of Pre-86 pension/family pension in respect of 6957388 Ex- OS GDE-II Shri Chaman Lal. 1. Reference to PPD No. C/RDC/3889/85, C/Corr/ADC/Pre-86/5380/2001 and C/Cor/ADC/Pre-86/5513/2003. 2. Pension and Family pension in respect of Ex-OS Gde-II Shri Chaman Lal has been fixied to Rs.2494.00 and Rs.1438.00 respectively vide corrigendum PPO No.C/Corr/ADC/Pre-86/5513/2003 whereas earlier these have been fixed to Rs.2500.00 and Rs.1500.00 vide Corrigendum PPO No.C/Corr/AOC/Pre-86/5380/2001 which is correct according to existing rules. 3. The individual has represented vide his application dated 18 Aug 2004 addressed to this depot and copy endorsed to your office that despite of the instruction contained in Govt. 3. The individual has represented vide his application dated 18 Aug 2004 addressed to this depot and copy endorsed to your office that despite of the instruction contained in Govt. of India Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensioners, Department of Pension & Pensioner's Welfare New Delhi letter Mo.F.No.45/10/98-P&PW(A) dated 17 Dec 1998 w.e.f. 1.1.1996 pension of all pensioners irrespective of their date of retirement shall not be less than 50% of the minimum pay in the revised scale of pay introduced w.e.f. 1.1.1996 of the post last held by the pensioners and similarly w.e.f. 1.1.1996 family pension shall not be less than 30% of the minimum pay in the revised scale introduced w.e.f. 1.1.1996 of the post last held by the pensioner/deceased Government servant, his pension has not been correctly granted. 4. In support of the representation made by the above named individual, a Xerox copy of Government of India Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievance and Pensioners, Department of Pension & Pensioner's Welfare New Delhi letter No. F .45/10/98-P&PW(A) dated 17 Dec 1998 is forwarded herewith for needful action please. Pay scale of 05 Gde II in the revised scale w.e.f. 1.1.1996 is Rs.5000-150-8000." 8. The aforesaid factual position leads to the conclusion that the appellant would be entitled to revision of his pension. For the relevant period he has been given an amount of Rs. 2494/-as basic pension which should have been revised to Rs. 2500/-. Likewise, his family basic pension for the relevant period was fixed at Rs. 1438/- whereas he was entitled to Rs. 1500/- per month. 9. As a sequel to the above discussion the judgment and order dated 19.05.2011 is set aside. The instant appeal is allowed and a direction is issued to the respondents to pay 50% of the minimum of the revised pay scale of the post last held by the appellant with effect from 01.01.1996 i.e. a sum of Rs. 2500/- and likewise minimum of the family pension at the rate of 30% which works out to be Rs. 1500/-. The order for revision of the pension with effect from 01.01.1996 shall be issued expeditiously preferably within a period of two months from today. The appellant is held entitled to Payment of arrears which shall also be paid within two months along with interest. The interest shall be paid at the rate of 8% P.A. 10. No order as to costs.