Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2470 (ALL)

Kailash Nath Srivastava v. U. P. Power Corp

2019-11-04

ABDUL MOIN

body2019
JUDGMENT : Abdul Moin, J. Heard Sri Ramesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Upendra Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. Sri Ramesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he does not want to press the present petition so far as it pertains to petitioners no. 2, 6 and 8. 3. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as not pressed so far as it pertains to petitioners no. 2, 6 and 8. 4. By means of the present petition, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:- "i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 26.10.2013 which are contained as annexure no. 1 to the writ petition. ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of the mandamus commanding the opposite parties to fix the pension of the petitioners in the pay scale of Rs. 18400-22000 on the basis of the corporation order dated 14.08.2010, 01.09.2010, 26.08.2009 read with government order dated 02.03.2009 which are contained as annexure no. 2 to 5 to the writ petition. iii. Issue any order suitable writ, order or direction which the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case as also in the interest of justice." 5. The case set forth by the petitioners are that they were initially appointed as Line Inspector subsequently re-designated as Junior Engineer. Thereafter, the petitioners were promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer and were also confirmed on the said post. On account of the stagnation being faced by them, the respondents made available the facility of higher pay scale to all the petitioners which was grant of the promotional pay scale. However, through order dated 19.6.1989, Assistant Engineers appointed directly were given the pay scale of Rs.5000-6300/- (old) after 19 years of service but Assistant Engineers like petitioners who were promotees were deprived of the said pay scale. 6. This dispute with respect to the order issued by the respondents dated 19.06.1989 which provided that the payment of higher pay scale after rendering 19 years of service shall be available only to direct recruits and not to the promotees who were working as Assistant Engineer, upon a challenge being raised to the said order dated 19.06.1989, a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Hamid Ali Qazi and Ors Vs. U.P.Power Corporation Ltd and Ors, 2007 (25) LCD 1487 set aside the order dated 19.06.1989 so far as it pertained to Para Kha (i) in so far as it deprived the promotees from payment of time pay scale after rendering 19 years of satisfactory service and the respondents were directed to provide the same benefit which was being given to direct recruits after rendering 19 years of satisfactory service for payment of time pay scale. The petitioners despite having retired from service were also given the said pay scale of Rs.5000-6300/- after rendering 19 years of service. 7. It is contended that through an order dated 17.01.2009, a copy of which is annexure RA 3 to the supplementary affidavit dated 14.03.2018, all Assistant Engineers were given the benefit of the third promotional pay scale. It is also contended that through order dated 14.08.2010, a copy of which is annexure 2 to the petition, the pay scales as admissible in pursuance to the third promotional pay scale had been revised w.e.f 01.01.1996 or on completion of 19 years of service, whichever was later and so far as it pertained to Assistant Engineer, the said pay scale was revised to Rs. 18400-22400. The said order was followed by another order dated 01.09.2010, a copy of which is annexure 3 to the writ petition which provided that those employees who had already retired would also be entitled to the said pay scale. 8. The petitioners who stood retired much before enhancement of the pay scales in terms of the order dated 14.08.2010 as issued by the respondents, staked their claim for being given the benefit of the said order dated 14.08.2010 and for being placed in the pay scale of Rs. 18400-22400/- for the purpose of payment of their pension. 9. In this regard, reliance has been placed on a Government order dated 02.03.2009, a copy of which is annexure 4 to the writ petition which has been adopted in the Corporation vide order dated 26.08.2009, a copy of which is annexure 5 to the writ petition to contend that the Government has specifically provided that with effect from 01.01.1996 the pensioners would be given pension which is not less than 50 percent of the revised pay scale as revised with effect from 01.01.1996. 10. 10. It is contended that as the petitioners in the capacity of Assistant Engineers were given the benefit of third promotional pay scale on completion of 19 years of service w.e.f December, 1987 and January, 1988 which prior to 1.1.1996 was Rs. 5000-6300 vide order dated 17.01.2009 which has been revised to Rs. 18400-22400/- vide order dated 14.08.2010 w.e.f 01.01.1996 or on completion of 19 years of service and through order dated 01.09.2010, it was also provided that those employees who retired up to 19.07.2010 would also be given the pay scale of Rs. 18400-22400/- and the Government order dated 02.03.2009 as adopted in the Corporation on 26.08.2009 provides that the pension would not be less than 50 percent of the last pay drawn as revised with effect from 01.01.1996, consequently despite the fact that all the petitioners have retired much prior to the revised pay scale of Rs. 18400-22400/- being introduced with effect from 14.08.2010, all the petitioners are entitled for fixation of pension in the pay scale of Rs. 18400-22400/- on the basis of the aforesaid orders with all attendant benefits. 11. It is also contended that all the petitioners had staked their claim for the aforesaid relief and when no heed was paid on their grievance, they had preferred Writ Petition No. 372 (SB) of 2013 Inre; Sri Kailash Nath Srivastava and 9 Ors Vs. U.P. Power Corporation Limited which was decided vide order dated 06.05.2013 with the direction to the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioners which has been rejected through order dated 26.10.2013, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the petition by which the respondents have refused to grant the said pay scale of Rs. 18400-22400/- for the purposes of pension fixation of the petitioners which order has been challenged by means of the present petition. 12. Raising a challenge to the impugned order dated 26.10.2013, Sri Ramesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the respondents while rejecting the claim of the petitioners have failed to consider that once through order dated 17.01.2009, all Assistant Engineers have been given the benefit of the third promotional pay scale irrespective of they being direct recruits or promotees and through order dated 14.08.2010 the third promotional pay scale has been revised to Rs. 18400-22400/- with effect from 01.01.1996 or w.e.f the date of having rendered 19 years of service and through order dated 01.09.2010 those employees who retired up to 19.07.2010 have also been held entitled for the benefit of grant of pay scale of Rs. 18400-22400/- consequently merely because the petitioners retired much prior to the introduction of the revised pay scale of Rs. 18400-22400/- through dated 14.08.2010 cannot and will not deprive the petitioners of the said pay scale. It is also contended that the respondents cannot be allowed to create a class in a class of pensioners inasmuch as those retired subsequent to 01.01.1996 have been granted third promotional pay scale in the revised pay scale of Rs. 18400-22400/-while the petitioners who retired prior to 01.01.1996 are only receiving their pension in the pay scale of Rs. 5000-6300/- which was subsequently revised to Rs. 16400-20000/- and thus a class is sought to be created in a homogeneous class of pensioners which is legally impermissible in the eyes of law. 13. In this regard, reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of All Manipur Pensioners Association Vs. State of Manipur and ors, 2019 AIR SC 3338, a Division Bench judgment of this Court Smt. Sarla Sharma Vs. State of U.P and Ors, (2017) 2 ADJ 194 . 14. On the other hand, Sri Upendra Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-Corporation argues that all the petitioners have retired much prior to introduction of the revised pay scale as was to be given to the Assistant Engineers in pursuance to the third promotional pay scale i.e the pay scale of Rs. 18400-22400/- which has only been introduced vide order dated 14.08.2010 but to be admissible w.e.f 01.01.1996 or upon completion of 19 years of service whichever is later. Admittedly all the petitioners stood retired much prior to 01.01.1996 and also accepted the grant of the third promotional pay scale in the then pay scale of Rs. 5000-6300/- revised to Rs. 16400-20000/-. It is submitted that whenever pension is fixed the same is fixed on the basis of the Government circular/guidelines prevailing on the date of retirement and thus it is argued that the Petitioners are not entitled to the reliefs prayed for by them. 15. 5000-6300/- revised to Rs. 16400-20000/-. It is submitted that whenever pension is fixed the same is fixed on the basis of the Government circular/guidelines prevailing on the date of retirement and thus it is argued that the Petitioners are not entitled to the reliefs prayed for by them. 15. So far as the judgment of this Court in the case of Hamid Ali Khazi (supra) is concerned, it is contended that the same was a case in which the promotee Assistant Engineers were sought to be deprived of the promotional pay scale as was being given to the directly recruited Assistant Engineers which is not the case in the present petition inasmuch as the petitioners have already been extended the benefit of the third promotional pay scale. 16. So far as the revised pay scale of Rs. 18400-22400/- is concerned, it is contended that the same has been allowed only to those who were in service as on 01.01.1996 and onwards. It is also argued that it is not the case that the petitioners have not been made available the third promotional pay scale as was admissible to them at the time when they completed requisite years of service rather the same has in fact been made available to them in the pay scale of Rs. 5000-6300/- and having subsequently retired from service, their pension and other retiral dues have been fixed on the basis of the rules and circulars which were prevailing at the time of their retirement. Elaborating this further, Sri Singh argues that the revised pay scale as on 01.01.1996 was Rs. 16400-20000/- but the same has been upgraded w.e.f 01.01.1996 to Rs. 18400-22400/- vide order dated 14.8.2010 and obviously the same would only be admissible to those employees who were in service and entitled to receive the same as on 01.01.1996 or the date when they completed 19 years of service in and again, the petitioners having retired much prior to 01.01.1996 would not be entitled for the benefit of the said pay scale. 17. As regards the order dated 01.09.2010 over which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is argued that the said order dated 01.09.2010 would only be applicable for those employees who retired between the dates of 01.01.1996 i.e the date when the revised pay scale of Rs. 17. As regards the order dated 01.09.2010 over which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is argued that the said order dated 01.09.2010 would only be applicable for those employees who retired between the dates of 01.01.1996 i.e the date when the revised pay scale of Rs. 18400-22400/- was introduced and subsequent thereto and would not have any retrospective operation i.e would not govern the cases of those employees who had already retired prior to 01.01.1996. 18. So far as the Government order dated 02.03.2009 as adopted by the Corporation vide order dated 26.08.2009 is concerned, it is contended that nowhere have the petitioners taken a plea that their pension is less than 50 percent of the revised pay as on 01.01.1996. Thus, it is contended that the petitioners are not entitled for any reliefs and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. Reliance has been placed over the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Transmission Corpn., A.P. Ltd. and others vs. P. Ramachandra Rao and another, (2006) 9 SCC 623 and State Of West Bengal And Anr. vs West Bengal Government Pensioners Association and Ors, (2002) 2 SCC 179 . 19. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 20. From the arguments and the pleadings on record, it comes out that all the petitioners are retired employee, who have retired from the post of Assistant Engineer after having been granted the promotional pay scale of Superintending Engineer of Rs.5,000-6300/- (old pay scale). Admittedly, all the petitioners retired prior to 1.1.1996 in the aforesaid pay scale of Rs.5,000-6,300/-. The claim of the petitioners is that because subsequent to 1.1.1996 i.e. vide order dated 14.8.2010, the pay scales, as were admissible in pursuance to the third promotional pay scale, have been revised with effect from 1.1.1996 or on completion of 19 years of service to Rs.18,400-22,400/-, consequently the pension of the petitioners should be fixed in the pay scale of Rs.18,400-22,400/- on the basis of the orders dated 14.8.2010, 1.9.2010, 26.8.2009 and 2.3.2009 annexed as Annexures-2 to 5 to the petition. It is admitted by the petitioners that they are being paid their pension in the pay scale of Rs.16,400-20,000/- which though not explicitly stated in the petition but appears to be the revised pay scale of Rs.5,000-6,300/-. 21. It is admitted by the petitioners that they are being paid their pension in the pay scale of Rs.16,400-20,000/- which though not explicitly stated in the petition but appears to be the revised pay scale of Rs.5,000-6,300/-. 21. The ground taken to claim the said pay scale of Rs.18,400-22,400/- is that those who have retired subsequent to 1.1.1996 while working on the post of Assistant Engineer, have been granted the promotional pay scale of Rs.18,400-22,400/- and by not granting the petitioners, all retired personnel, the aforesaid pay scale, a class is sought to be created in a class of homogeneous pensioners which is impermissible in the eyes of law. 22. On the face of it, the claim of the petitioners merits to be negated inasmuch as it is a settled proposition of law that a person would only be entitled for benefits as per the rules which were prevailing at the time of his retirement. A Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the case of D.S. Nakara vs. Union of India, (1983) 1 SCC 305 held that all pensioners governed by rules and regulations shall be entitled to pension as computed under the liberalised pension scheme from the specified date, irrespective of the date of retirement as a liberalised formula had been arrived at by the government for computation of pension. It was in such circumstances that the Hon'ble Apex Court held that a class amongst the class of homogeneous pensioners cannot be created by the Government. 23. The judgment, over which reliance has been placed by the petitioners i.e. the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of All Manipur Pensioners Association (supra), has placed reliance on the judgment Constitution Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of D.S. Nakara (supra). However, the said case pertains to a matter in which the Government of Manipur had issued an office memorandum revising the quantum of pension to provide that the employees who retired on or after 1.1.1996 shall only be entitled to the revised pension at a higher percentage vis-a-vis the employees who retired before 1.1.1996. In was in such circumstances that the Hon'ble Apex Court held the pre 1996 pensioners to be entitled for the benefit of the said office memorandum and for enhancement of pension. In was in such circumstances that the Hon'ble Apex Court held the pre 1996 pensioners to be entitled for the benefit of the said office memorandum and for enhancement of pension. The said judgment is clearly distinguishable inasmuch as in the instant case the petitioners have been given pension on the basis of the pay scale which they were drawing at the time of their retirement and thus it is not a case in which a discrimination has been created by the Government amongst the pre 1996 retirees and post 1996 retirees. 24. Likewise, the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Sarla Sharma (supra) was a case in which there was a subsequent amendment in the relevant pension scheme which provided for full pension after 33 years of service while in the case of the petitioner of that case, her pension had only been calculated by treating her qualifying service of 30 years. The claim of the petitioner of that petition was that once she had completed 36 years of service, consequently there was no occasion for the respondents to only calculate her service of 30 years and thus in such circumstances the Division Bench of this Court considering the subsequent amendment, held that the petitioner is also entitled for pension after considering 33 years of qualifying service. Again the said judgment is distinguishable on its own facts. 25. Herein the Petitioners are claiming the fixation of pension in the pay scale of Rs. 18,400-22,000/- despite having retired much prior to the said pay scale having been introduced. The claim is based on the orders issued by the respondent dated 14.8.2010, 1.9.2010, 20.8.2009 and Government Order dated 2.3.2009. It is not the case of the petitioners that a liberalised formula or liberalised pension scheme has been introduced by the Corporation which the petitioners are being deprived of by the corporation. 26. So far as the claim of the petitioners on the basis of the order dated 14.8.2010 is concerned, the same is an order which gives the revised pay scale of Rs.18,400-22,400/- to the Assistant Engineers with effect from 1.1.1996 or with effect from the date of completion of 19 years which, as already indicated above, would not be applicable upon the petitioners, the Petitioners having retired much prior to the said pay scale being introduced. 27. 27. Likewise, so far as the order dated 1.9.2010 which provides that the order dated 14.8.2010 would be applicable upon all the employees who retired up to 19.7.2010, suffice to state that the order dated 1.9.2010 has to be read harmoniously with the order dated 14.8.2010 to read that all those who retired after 1.1.1996 or having completed 19 years of service subsequent to 1996 would be entitled to the said pay scale of Rs.18,400-22,400/- and not the petitioners who had already retired when the order dated 14.8.2010 had been issued. 28. Likewise, the order dated 2.3.2009, as adopted by the respondents/Corporation vide order dated 26.8.2009, over which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners to contend that the Government has specifically provided that with effect from 1.1.1996 the pensioners would be given pension which would not be below the 50% of the pay scale as revised with effect from 1.1.1996, suffice to state that there is no pleading by the petitioners that the pension which they are receiving is less than 50% of the revised pay scale. In the absence of any such pleading, no relief can be granted to the petitioners on this score. 29. Even otherwise, the law pertaining to the emoluments admissible to retired employees is well settled by the Apex Court in a catena of decisions. In the case of Indian Ex-Services League and others vs. Union of India and others, (1991) 2 SCC 104 , a Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court has held, after considering the earlier Constitution Bench judgment in the case of D.S. Nakara (supra), that the judgment of D.S. Nakara (supra) is of limited application and there is no scope for enlarging the ambit of that decision to cover all claims made by the pension retirees or a demand for an identical amount of pension to every retiree from the same rank irrespective of the date of retirement. For the sake of convenience, the relevant observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court are reproduced below:- 12. For the sake of convenience, the relevant observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court are reproduced below:- 12. The liberalised pension scheme in the context of which the decision was rendered in Nakara provided for computation of pension according to a more liberal formula under which "average emoluments" were determined with reference to the last ten month's salary instead of 36 months' salary provided earlier yielding a higher average, coupled with a slab system and raising the ceiling limit for pension. This Court held that where the made of computation of pension is liberalised from a specified date, its benefit must be given not merely to retirees subsequent to that date but also to earlier existing retirees irrespective of their date of retirement even though the earlier retirees would not be entitled to any arrears prior to the specified date on the basis of the revised computation made according to the liberalised formula. For the purpose of such a scheme all existing retirees irrespective of the date of their retirement, were held to constitute one class, any further division within that class being impermissible. According to that decision, the pension of all earlier retirees was to be recomputed as on the specified date in accordance with the liberalised formula of computation on the basis of the average emoluments of each retiree payable on his date of retirement. For this purpose there was no revision of the emoluments of the earlier retirees under the scheme. It was clearly, stated that 'if the pensioners form a class. their computation cannot be by different formula affording unequal treatment solely on the ground that some retired earlier and some retired later'. This according to us is the decision in Nakara and no more. 13. Ordinarily, it would suffice to mention the gist of Nakara decision without extensively quoting therefrom. However, we have done so for the reason that the impassioned plea of Shri G.Viswanatha Iyer, learned counsel appearing for the Army Officers which was reiterated with an added emotive appeal by Shri K.L, Rathee, appearing for the remaining ranks of Armed Forces seems to suggest that denial of petitioner's claim amounts to mis-reading the Nakara decision and refusad of the logical relief flowing therefor. It is only to dispel this incorrect impression we have quoted from Nakara at some length. It is only to dispel this incorrect impression we have quoted from Nakara at some length. We have merely to decide whether the petitioner's claim flows from the decision in Nakara and we are unable to find anything in Nakara to support such claim. 14. Nakara decision came up for consideration before another Constitution Bench recently in Krishena Kumar and Others v. Union of India and Others, (1990) 4 SCC 207 . The petitioners in that case were retired Railway employees who were covered by or opted for the Railway Contributory Provident Fund Scheme. It was held that P.F. retirees and pension retirees constitute different classes and it was never held in Nakara that pension retirees and P.F, retirees formed a homogeneous class, even though pension retirees alone did constitute a homogeneous class within which any further classification for the purpose of a liberalised pension scheme was impermissible. It was pointed out that in Nakara, it was never required to be decided that all the retirees for all purposes formed one class and no further classification was permissible. We have referred to this decision merely to indicate that another Constitution Bench of this Court also has read Nakara decision as one of limited application and there is no scope for enlarging the ambit of that decision to cover all claims made by the pension retirees or a demand for an identical amount of pension to every retiree from the same rank irrespective of the date of retirement, even though the reckonable emoluments for the purpose of computation of their pension be different." 30. Thereafter the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of K.L. Rathee vs. Union of India, (1997) 6 SCC 7 , after considering the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of D.S. Nakara and Indian Ex-Services League (supra) has held as under:- "9. This aspect of the question was examined in the case of Indian Ex-Services League vs. Union of India, (1991) 2 SCC 104 : 1991 SCC (L&S) 536 : (1991) 16 ATC 488 : (1991) 1 SCR 158 ] . This aspect of the question was examined in the case of Indian Ex-Services League vs. Union of India, (1991) 2 SCC 104 : 1991 SCC (L&S) 536 : (1991) 16 ATC 488 : (1991) 1 SCR 158 ] . The case was argued on behalf of Armed Forces personnel retiring from commissioned ranks as well as Armed Forces personnel retiring from below the commissioned rank who were represented by Shri K.L. Rathee, J.S. Verma, J. (as His Lordship then was) speaking for the Constitution Bench which heard the matter observed that the contention of the writ petitioners on the basis of Nakara, (1983) 1 SCC 305 : 1983 SCC (L&S) 145 : (1983) 2 SCR 165 ] decision was untenable. On behalf of the petitioners, it had been contended that all retirees who held the same ranks irrespective of their date of retirement must be given the same amount of pension. In effect, what was urged was that there must be "one rank one pension" for all the retirees irrespective of their date of retirement. This contention of the petitioners was rejected by the Constitution Bench by holding that Nakara, (1983) 1 SCC 305 : 1983 SCC (L&S) 145 : (1983) 2 SCR 165 ] decision was of limited application. There was no scope for enlarging the ambit of that decision to cover all claims made by the petitioners for identical amount of pension to every retired person from the same rank irrespective of the date of retirement, even though the reckonable emoluments for the purpose of computation of pension were different. 10. In fact, the principle laid down in the case of Indian Ex-Services League, (1991) 2 SCC 104 : 1991 SCC (L&S) 536 : (1991) 16 ATC 488 : (1991) 1 SCR 158 ] negates the case of the petitioner in the instant case. Nakara case, (1983) 1 SCC 305 : 1983 SCC (L&S) 145 : (1983) 2 SCR 165 ] does not lay down that the last ten months' emoluments must be deemed to be the same for all the employees at the time of their retirement. The emoluments have to be calculated according to the government rules in force at the time of retirement of the employees. The emoluments have to be calculated according to the government rules in force at the time of retirement of the employees. But, if the principle of average of last ten months' emoluments has been adopted for some employees, then that principle must be extended to all the employees who have retired before them. Nakara case, (1983) 1 SCC 305 : 1983 SCC (L&S) 145 : (1983) 2 SCR 165 ] did not lay down that the reckonable emoluments for the purpose of calculation of pension must be the same for a person occupying the same post. 11. ..... 12. ..... 13. It clearly appears from all these cases that Nakara case, (1983) 1 SCC 305 : 1983 SCC (L&S) 145 : (1983) 2 SCR 165 ] is not a case of universal application irrespective of the facts and circumstances of the case. When the Government decided that pension was to be calculated on the basis of average salary drawn over a period of last ten months, it was held in Nakara, (1983) 1 SCC 305 : 1983 SCC (L&S) 145 : (1983) 2 SCR 165 ] that this principle has to be applied even to those persons who had retired before the notified date. That, however, does not mean that the emoluments of the persons who were retiring after the notified date and those who have retired before the notified date holding the same status must be treated to be the same. This argument was specifically negatived by the Constitution Bench in the case of All India Services Pensioners Assn., (1988) 2 SCC 580 : 1988 SCC (L&S) 651 : (1988) 7 ATC 449 : AIR 1988 SC 501 ] What the petitioner is claiming in this case is more or less the same relief as was denied to him in the above case." 31. From the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of K.L. Rathee (supra), it clearly comes out that the emoluments to a retired person has to be calculated according to the relevant rules in force at the time of retirement of the Government employee and the emoluments of the persons who have retired prior to a particular date cannot be enhanced to bring them at par with the emoluments of the persons who have retired after the notified date. 32. 32. Again the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of K.S. Krishnaswami and others vs. Union of India and others, (2006) 13 SCC 215, after considering the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of D.S. Nakara, Indian Ex-Service League and K.L. Rathee (supra), has clearly held that the judgment in the case of D.S. Nakara (supra) cannot be enlarged to cover all applications by a retiree or a demand for an identical amount of pension to every retiree, irrespective of the date of retirement and that emoluments of persons who retired after the notified date holding the same status cannot be treated to be the same. 33. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of W.B. Government Pensioners' Association (supra) again, after considering the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of D.S. Nakara, Indian Ex-Service Lege and K.L. Rathee (supra) held that pre revision retirees are not entitled to parity with post revision retiree on amount of pension. To the same effect is the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Transmission Corpn(supra). 34. Accordingly, taking into consideration the aforesaid discussions, no case for grant of any relief is made out. The writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.