JUDGMENT : V.G. ARUN, J. 1. The applicants before the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. Nos. 297 of 2012 and 157 of 2014 are the petitioners in O.P. (CAT) Nos. 2442 of 2013 and 2 of 2015 respectively. The essential facts necessary for adjudication of the issue canvassed in these original petitions are narrated hereunder, with reference to the parties and the exhibits as in the original applications. The applicant in O.A. No. 157 of 2014 retired as Member, Postal Board on 30.6.1992. Based on the recommendations of the 6th Central Pay Commission (CPC), the pay scale of Member, Postal Board was revised to the Higher Administrative Grade plus (HAG+) scale of Rs. 75500-80000, with effect from 1.1.2006. Accordingly, the applicant's pension was revised to Rs. 37,750/-. Later, as per Annexure 4 dated 24.2.2014, the pension of the applicant was re-fixed as Rs. 33,500/-. The reason for such revision and reduction of pension was that the applicant had retired from the scale of Rs. 7300-7600, the corresponding revised scale of which was Rs. 67000-79000, as on 1.1.2006. That, in terms of Paragraph 4.2 of the Department of Pen & Pensioners welfare O.M. No. 38/37/08- P&Pen(A) dated 1.9.2008, pension is to be revised, corresponding to the pre-revised scale of pay from which the pensioner had retired. This position was confirmed vide O.M. No. 38/37/08-P&Pen(A) dated 28.1.2013 issued by the Department of Pension and Pensioners Welfare. Aggrieved, the applicant approached the Tribunal seeking to set aside Annexure A4 and for a declaration that he is entitled to 50% of the revised pay of the Member, Department of Posts as pension with effect from 1.1.2006. 2. The applicant in O.A. No. 597 of 2012 retired on 31.5.2003 as Member, Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC). At the time of retirement, the applicant was drawing basic pay of Rs. 24,700/- in the pay scale Rs. 24050-26000. On the basis of the recommendations of the 6th Central Pay Commission, the pay scale was revised to Rs. 75500-80000 and consequently, the applicant's pension was re-fixed at Rs. 37,750/- with effect from 1.1.2006. With effect from 24.12.2008, the pay scale of Member, CBEC was up-graded to the apex scale of Rs. 80000/- applicable to the rank of Special Secretary to the Government of India. The applicant sought revision of his pension to Rs. 75500-80000 and consequently, the applicant's pension was re-fixed at Rs. 37,750/- with effect from 1.1.2006. With effect from 24.12.2008, the pay scale of Member, CBEC was up-graded to the apex scale of Rs. 80000/- applicable to the rank of Special Secretary to the Government of India. The applicant sought revision of his pension to Rs. 40,000/- based on the up-gradation of pay scale of Member, CBEC with effect from 24.12.2008. His request in this regard having not been considered, the original application was filed seeking a declaration that the applicant is entitled for pension @ 50% of the pay of the Member, Central Board of Excise and Customs, with effect from 24.12.2008. 3. In O.A. No. 157 of 2014, the controversy was as to the pay scale of Member, Postal Service Board, corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the applicant had retired. The applicant contended that the revised pay scale of Member Postal Board is Rs. 75500-80000. According to the respondents, the revised pay scale applicable is Rs. 67000-79000. Based on the records produced by the respondents, the Tribunal found that the pay scale at which the applicant had retired from service was Rs. 7300-100-7600, which corresponded to the Grade S-30 with scale of pay Rs. 22400-525-24500 and the corresponding 6th CPC pay scale is Rs. 67000-79000. It was therefore held that the revised pension of the applicant would work out to Rs. 33,500/- and not Rs. 37,750/- i.e. half of the last pay drawn or would have drawn in the revised scale. It was found that the applicant had failed to prove that the revised scale applicable to him is the HAG+ scale of Rs. 75500-80000. 4. In O.A. No. 597 of 2012, it was found that the upgradation of the post and pay of Member, CBEC brought about by Annexure A3 order had nothing to do with the implementation of the recommendations of the 6th Central Pay Commission. It was noted that the effect of Annexure A3 order was only from 24.12.2008, the date on which the CBEC (Chairman and Members) Recruitment (Amendment) Rules, 2008 came into effect. Hence it was observed that with effect from 24.12.2008, there is a distinct class of Members of CBEC with the apex scale of Rs. 80000, with the rank of Special Secretary to the Government of India and that the petitioner does not belong to that class. Hence it was observed that with effect from 24.12.2008, there is a distinct class of Members of CBEC with the apex scale of Rs. 80000, with the rank of Special Secretary to the Government of India and that the petitioner does not belong to that class. It was held that the upgraded scale of Member CBEC was not in any Pay Band and that, being a stand alone fixed apex scale, the question of reckoning the minimum of that scale for fixing the revised pay scale of the petitioner does not arise. It was held that the term "up-gradation" implies increase in pay and rank whereas the term "revision" implies examination and correction or change, which can be upward or downward. 5. By the impugned orders, the Tribunal dismissed the original applications. Even though the applicants sought review of the orders, the Tribunal dismissed the review applications finding no error apparent on the face of the order and on the premise that the applicants were actually seeking a fresh look and re-adjudication of the matter. 6. Heard Sri. C.S. Gopalakrishnan Nair, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri. T.V. Vinu learned Central Government Counsel. 7. The learned Counsel for the petitioners reiterated the contentions urged before the Tribunal and drew our attention to Annexure A10 order of the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal produced in O.A. No. 597 of 2012, wherein a similar issue pertaining to the 5th CPC was considered and answered in favour of the pensioners. It is submitted that revision of pay scale of pensioners are dependent on the revision of pay scale of the post from which the pensioner had retired and not the pay scale at the time of his/her retirement. Otherwise it would lead to an anomalous situation where, based on the date of retirement, varied pension is drawn by pensioners, who had retired from the same post. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Others vs. Rafiq Masih, (2015) 4 SCC 334 to contend that in the case of the petitioner in O.P. CAT No. 2 of 2015 the pension granted was subsequently reduced and recovery effected, which action is opposed to the principles laid down by the Apex Court. 8. 8. The learned Central Government Counsel submitted that the issue was considered by the Apex Court in K.S. Krishnaswamy and Others vs. Union of India and Another, (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 491 and Annexure A10 judgment was rendered without taking note of that decision. It is submitted that a Division Bench of this Court in OP (CAT) No. 198 of 2017 and connected cases had considered the same question in the context of the 6th CPC itself and had ruled against the pensioners. 9. In view of the contention that the issue is covered by the Division Bench judgment in OP (CAT) No. 198 of 2017 and connected cases, it is only appropriate to consider that judgment. In OP (CAT) No. 198 of 2017 and connected cases, after extracting paragraphs 4.1 and 4.2 of O.M dated 1.9.2008, the Division Bench held as follows: “Thus, a scanning of paras 4.1 and 4.2 of the said O.M. dated 1.9.2008 will reveal that the consolidated pension/family pension has to be worked out in accordance with the provisions under para 4.1 and para 4.2 is there to ensure that the fixation of the revised pension/family pension shall not be lower than 50% of the minimum of the pay in the pay band plus the grade pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired. In the case of HAG+ and above scales, it will be 50% of the minimum of the revised pay scale. Thus, it is evident on computing the revised pension the pre-2006 pensioners would be entitled to get the higher among the amount on working it out in accordance with para 4.1 and para 4.2 and at any rate, they would get an amount as worked out in accordance with para 4.2 as the minimum revised pension. In the light of the unambiguous provision under para 4.2 of the said O.M., there can be no doubt with respect to the mode of calculation of the minimum assured revised pension. The words 'corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired' invite no further interpretation especially in the light of the decision in Krishnaswamy's case (supra). As already noticed, the Apex Court in Krishnaswamy's case held that an increase in the pay scale in any recommendation of a Pay Commission is a corresponding increase in the pay scale and not of the post. As already noticed, the Apex Court in Krishnaswamy's case held that an increase in the pay scale in any recommendation of a Pay Commission is a corresponding increase in the pay scale and not of the post. The Apex Court has also made it very clear that recommendations of the Pay Commission are subject to the acceptance/rejection with modification of the appropriate Government. Hence, when O.M. dated 1.9.2008 provides for taking into account the minimum of the pay in the pay band plus the grade pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired there can be no way to take 50% of minimum of the pay band plus the grade pay with respect to the scale of pay applicable to the post in question and it can only be what is specifically provided thereunder viz. 50% of the minimum of the pay band plus grade pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired.” Ultimately, the Division Bench encapsulated the question and answered it as follows: “37. Therefore, the question is what was the legally sustainable contention and supporting material available to uphold the claim of the respondent for the grade pay of Rs.4600/- ? Evidently, the Tribunal accepted the contention of the respondent herein/the applicant that in view of the decision of this Court in O.P. (CAT) No. 169/2015, the computation of pension based on the decision of implementation on the recommendations of the VIth CPC has to be 50% of the pay scale with respect to the scale of pay applicable to the post in question and not the corresponding pre-revised scale of pay from which the pensioner had retired. This is evident from the recital in paragraph 8 of the impugned order which would reveal that the contention of the respondent herein that as per the VIth CPC the revised pay scale of Postmaster HSG-I is Rs. 9300-34,800 with Grade Pay of Rs. 4,600/- with effect from 1.1.2006 was taken into account by the Tribunal for holding that though the respondent herein had retired from service in the pay scale of Rs. 6,500-10,500/- on account of his promotion as HSG-I after his retirement the pay scale applicable to HSG-I at the time of his retirement should be his pre-revised pay in terms of paragraph 4.2 of O.M. dated 1.9.2008. 6,500-10,500/- on account of his promotion as HSG-I after his retirement the pay scale applicable to HSG-I at the time of his retirement should be his pre-revised pay in terms of paragraph 4.2 of O.M. dated 1.9.2008. Since the corresponding revised pay of Deputy Postmaster HSG-I after the VIth CPC was Rs. 9,300-34,800/- with Grade Pay of Rs. 4,600/- with effect from 1.1.2006 his pension has to be fixed as 50% of the minimum pay in the pay band of Rs. 9,300-34,800/- plus Grade Pay of Rs. 4,600/- or as per the minimum pay in the pay band of Rs.9,300-34,800/- plus grade pay of Rs.4,600/- as per the fitment table, whichever is more beneficial to the petitioner. Thus, it is obvious that virtually, the reason for holding that the respondent herein is entitled to a revised pension of 50% of the minimum pay in the pay band of Rs. 9300- 34,800/- with Grade Pay of Rs. 4,600/- is that it is the scale of pay, in fact, pay band applicable to the post of Deputy Postmaster. This finding is, no doubt, in conflict with the binding decision in Krishnaswamy's case (Supra). We have already found that the decision in O.P. (CAT) No. 169/2015 was rendered without referring to the decision of the Apex Court in Krishnaswamy's case (supra). In such circumstances, in the light of the decision in Krishnaswamy's case (supra) and Sethumadhavan's case (supra), the said direction cannot be sustained. In short, in view of the factual matrix obtained in this case, the respondent is entitled only to the grade pay of Rs. 4,200/- which is the normal replacement pay structure Grade Pay and he cannot, as a matter of right, claim Rs. 4,600/- as Grade Pay for the purpose of calculating his revised pension based on the decision in implementing the recommendations of the VIth CPC. Hence, the calculation of revised pension as per VIth CPC corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which he retired can be taken only as Rs. 9300-34,800 + G.P. Rs. 4200/- based on para 4.2 of O.M. dated 1.9.2008 can only be Rs.6750/-. At the same time, calculation of revised pension as per para 4.1 of O.M. dated 1.9.2008 is Rs. 8842/-. The respondent was not able to establish that he is entitled to get Rs. 9,230/- w.e.f. 1.1.2006. 9300-34,800 + G.P. Rs. 4200/- based on para 4.2 of O.M. dated 1.9.2008 can only be Rs.6750/-. At the same time, calculation of revised pension as per para 4.1 of O.M. dated 1.9.2008 is Rs. 8842/-. The respondent was not able to establish that he is entitled to get Rs. 9,230/- w.e.f. 1.1.2006. As regards the first prayer of the respondent in O.A. No. 526/2016 for a declaration that he is entitled to revised pension based on the pay band plus grade applicable to HSG-I w.e.f. 1.1.2006, we have already found the prayer is impermissible to be granted in view of the decision in Krishnaswamy's case (supra). In short, the respondent herein/the applicant is entitled to get Rs. 8842/- only as his revised pension. The respondent did not have a case that the calculation of his revised pension, as mentioned in the O.P. in terms of para 4.1 of O.M. dated 1.9.2008 or that it is below the amount of revised pension grantable in terms of para 4.2 of O.M. dated 1.9.2008. The upshot of the discussion is that the respondent herein/the applicant is entitled to the reliefs sought for in the Original Application and therefore, the impugned order calls for interference. In the result, this O.P. is allowed and the impugned order in O.A. No. 526/2016 is set aside. As a necessary sequel, the said O.A. will stand dismissed.” 10. Thus, after considering the contentions in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in K.S. Krishnaswamy, the Division Bench proceeded to hold that revision of pension is based on the scale of pay at which the pensioner had retired and not on upgradation of the post from which he/she had retired. The Division Bench further found that Annexure A10 decision of the Principal Bench in O.A. No. 655 of 2010 and connected cases was rendered without reference to the decision in Krishnaswamy's case and therefore rendered per incuriam. 11. We are in respectful agreement with the findings in O.P. (CAT) No. 198 of 2017 and connected cases. The revision of pension is in relation to the Pay Band plus the Grade Pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired and not corresponding to the up-graded pay scale of the post from which the pensioner had retired. The revision of pension is in relation to the Pay Band plus the Grade Pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired and not corresponding to the up-graded pay scale of the post from which the pensioner had retired. Therefore, any up-gradation and revision of pay scale brought about to the post from which the petitioners had retired, will not result in the revision of their pension, which is dependent on revision of the pay scale, from which the petitioners had retired. 12. We find the other reasons stated in the impugned orders also to be well founded. As found by the Tribunal based on Annexures R8, R9 and R10 in O.A. No. 157 of 2014, the pay scale applicable to the applicant was Rs. 67000-79000, which is not an HAG+ scale. Hence, re-fixation of pension at Rs. 33,500/- was in order. The finding in O.A. No. 597 of 2012 that up-gradation of the post and pay scale of Member, CBEC had nothing to do with the recommendations of the 6th Central Pay Commission and, as such, cannot be the basis for seeking corresponding revision, is also correct. 13. The contention based on Rafiq Masih cannot hold good for the reason that the petitioners are not Class-III or Class-IV employees and the excess payment was not made for a period of more than five years. The other situations cited in Rafiq Masih are also not attracted. The recovery is definitely not iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balance of the employer's right to recover. The issue in OP (CAT) No. 2 of 2015 is only of correction of a mistake committed, on the basis of a wrong computation made at the instance of the petitioner. 14. Therefore, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned orders of the Tribunal. The original petitions are accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.