Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 173 (RAJ)

Man Kaur Dutt v. Union of India

2020-01-21

NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA, SABINA

body2020
ORDER : 1. Petitioner has filed this petition challenging order dated 31.08.2017 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), whereby, original application filed by the petitioner was dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Tribunal has erred in dismissing the original application filed by the petitioner. Husband of the petitioner was working as Inspector in Customs and Central Excise Department and had died on 20.12.1981. Petitioner was granted family pension. Thereafter, pay scales were revised and the family pension of the petitioner was liable to be revised with effect from 21.04.2004 onwards in view of Circular dated 11.05.2004 (Annexure-R/1 attached to reply to writ petition). In support of his argument, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Agia Ram & Others Vs. Union of India & Others (CWP No. 9581-CAT of 2011 decided on 24.08.2011), wherein it was held as under: "5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that once the post of Mistri-cum-Supervisor has acquired a new nomenclature and it has also been given higher scale of pay then the cosmetic cover which has been put forward by the respondent cannot be permitted to hide the real face of the erstwhile Mistri/supervisor. For all instants and purposes, they would all be treated as Junior Engineer-II. Once the pay scale of the post of Mistri/supervisor is deemed to be revised then their pension is also be required to be re-fixed w.e.f. 1.11.2003." 3. Learned counsel has next placed reliance on the judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Union of India Vs. Darshan Lal Bali & Others (CWP No. 8563 of 2014 and other connected petitions decided on 29.01.2015), wherein it was held as under: "[20]. The petitioner(s) are a welfare State. They cannot and ought not to expect the respondent-retirees to roam in the corridors of Courts. The conscious decision taken by the petitioner(s) to extend benefit of their 2003 Circular to a batch of pre-1996 retirees amounts to shift in their policy, therefore, also the respondents being similarly placed retirees, are entitled to the benefit of revised Policy decision, even if such decision has emanated out of the command issued by this Court in Agia Ram and others' case. The denial of benefit of revised higher pension etc. The denial of benefit of revised higher pension etc. to the respondents when it stands granted to other similarly placed retirees, certainly does violence to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution." 4. Learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the petition and has submitted that the benefit of revised pay scale could not be granted to the petitioner, as she was liable to be granted family pension on the basis of pay scale of her deceased husband as on 20.12.1981 and she could only get the benefit of revised family pension. 5. Petitioner had filed original application before the Tribunal claiming following relief: "In view of above facts and circumstances, the applicant most respectfully prays for the following relief:- (i) PPO No. 519178100134 dated 02.08.2014 be quashed and revised basic family pension be ordered to be fixed in pay band 9300-34,800 grade pay 4600/- at Rs. 5142/- from 24.09.2012 onward. (ii) Revised basic family pension be ordered to be fixed in pay scale 6500-10500 at Rs. 1950/- from 21.04.2004 to 31.12.2005. (iii) Arrears may be ordered to be given at penal interest @ 18% per annum since they accrued till actual payment. (iv) Exemplary Cost may be imposed on respondents for again dragging applicant to litigate at the age of 81 years. (v) Any other suitable action and relief that this Hon'ble tribunal may deem fit to restore justice to applicant and punish the errant officers." 6. Admittedly, husband of the petitioner was working as Inspector with the respondents and he died on 20.12.1981. Petitioner was granted family pension after the death of her husband. Vide circular dated 11.05.2004, pay scales of Inspectors of Central Excise Department were enhanced from 5500-9000 to 6500-10500 with effect from 21.04.2004. 7. Since the husband of the petitioner had died in the year 1981, therefore, petitioner would not be entitled for enhancement of family pension in view of revised pay scales vide Circular dated 11.05.2004. Learned Tribunal had, thus, rightly dismissed original application filed by the petitioner challenging impugned PPO dated 02.08.2014. 8. Judgments relied by learned counsel for the petitioner fail to advance the case of the petitioner as they are based on different facts. 9. No ground for interference by this Court is made out. 10. Dismissed.