Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1893 (DEL)

BHOOP SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA

2015-10-07

DEEPA SHARMA, S.RAVINDRA BHAT

body2015
JUDGMENT : S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J. 1. The petitioner’s grievance is that he has been fixed in the wrong stage of the pension resulting in loss of pension and the other benefits. 2. The petitioner initially retired as on 06.09.1991 as an Inspector in the pay scale of Rs. 1600-2900. With effect from 01.01.1996, the replacement scale was Rs. 5500-9000. This was subsequently revised on 10.10.1997 to Rs. 6500-10500. With the VIth Pay Commission’s recommendations, the pay scale in respect of the equivalent applicable grade (from which the petitioner had retired) was fixed at Rs. 9300-34800 with Rs. 4200/- grade pay. The petitioner had approached this court by way of the present writ petition complaining that the pension fixed consequent to the VIth Pay Commission was on a wrong basis and instead of Rs. 7215/- the corresponding pension of Rs. 8145/- with reference to the original pay scale of Rs. 6500-10500 (i.e. pre-revised pay scale) was applicable. This court had on 23.02.2015, for the reasons recorded, rejected the petition. The petitioner felt aggrieved and claimed that the dismissal was contrary to the record and filed R.P.226/2015. That review petition was allowed on 11.09.2015 and the writ petition was restored for hearing on merits. The order of the court is as follows: “1. Having perused Annexure P-1 and the Fitment Table we find that those who were in the pay scale Rs. 5000-9000 as also those who were in the pay scale Rs. 6500-10500 have been placed in PB-2 : Rs. 9300-34800 with Grade Pay Rs. 4200, but for purposes of pension there would be a difference. The minimum pension for those who came to PB-2 with reference to pay scale Rs. 6500-10500 is Rs. 8145/- and those who came to PB-2 with reference to pay scale Rs. 5500-9000 their minimum pension is Rs. 7215/-. 2. This aspect of the matter has clearly been overlooked by this Bench when order dated February 23, 2015 was passed. Thus R.P.No.226/2015 is allowed. Order dated February 23, 2015 is recalled. 3. Writ petition is restored for hearing on merits. 4. The writ petition shall be listed before the Roster Bench for directions on October 07, 2015.” 3. We have considered the submissions of the parties. It is not in dispute that the petitioner retired on 06.07.1991 and was at that time in the pay scale of Rs. 1600-2900. 3. Writ petition is restored for hearing on merits. 4. The writ petition shall be listed before the Roster Bench for directions on October 07, 2015.” 3. We have considered the submissions of the parties. It is not in dispute that the petitioner retired on 06.07.1991 and was at that time in the pay scale of Rs. 1600-2900. He was consequently permitted retiring pension at Rs. 968/- per month. After implementation of the 5Pay Commission the pay scale corresponding Rs. 1600-2900 was Rs. 5500-9000. His pension was therefore revised to Rs. 2936/- on 01.01.1996. Apparently, in the meanwhile the pay scale – in respect of the grade from which the petitioner retired – underwent a change inasmuch as it was revised to Rs. 6500-10500 sometime in 1997. When the VIth Pay Commission recommendations were made, the petitioner’s pension was re-fixed on the assumption that his last drawn salary was in the grade equivalent to Rs. 5500-9000. This was clearly erroneous because he was actually drawing salary as per a scale equivalent to Rs. 6500-10500 by virtue of the subsequent order made in 1997. It is therefore evident that the petitioner is entitled to higher pension at Rs. 8145/-according to the Fitment Table placed on record. 4. In view of the above discussion, the writ petition has to succeed. The respondents are directed to consider the record and make consequential alterations within eight weeks from today and ensure that the differential pension/arrears are disbursed to the petitioner within 12 weeks. 5. The writ petition is allowed in the above terms.