JUDGMENT : Sunil Beniwal, J. In D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7818/2019 :- 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition assailing the order dated 19.10.2016 passed by the Director of Accounts (Postal), Ministry of Communications and Information Technology, Department of Posts, Jaipur; the order dated 26.10.2018 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur, while deciding Original Application No. 290/00071/2017; and the order dated 08.04.2019 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur, while deciding Review Application No.290/0004/2019, whereby the review petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed. 2. The facts which led to the filing of the Original Application No.290/00071/2017 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur, in a nutshell, are that the petitioner got superannuated on 28.02.1991 while holding the post of Superintendent. At the time of his superannuation, he was in the Pay Scale of PSS Group-‘B’ (Rs.2000-60-2300-75-3200-100-3500) due to post facto promotion. At the time of his retirement, his pension was fixed at Rs.1338/-. Upon implementation of the 5 th and 6 th Central Pay Commissions (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the CPC’) w.e.f. 01.01.1996 and 01.01.2006 respectively, his pension was revised and fixed at Rs.4039/- and Rs.9230/-, respectively. The 6 th Pay Commission was implemented and accordingly, the revised pension order was issued on 04.07.2013, fixing the pension of the petitioner at Rs.9230/-. 3. Being aggrieved by the fixation of pension after implementation of 6 th CPC i.e. order dated 04.07.2013, the petitioner challenged the same before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur by way of filing an Original Application being O.A. No.290/00068/2014, vide which, he questioned the fixation of his pension and sought its revision strictly in terms of the O.M. dated 01.09.2008. As per the prayer made in the original application filed in 2014, the prayer sought revision of his pension at Rs.9375/-. The said O.A. came to be decided by the Central Administrative Tribunal vide its order dated 12.08.2016, whereby the order of pension fixation at Rs.9230/- of the petitioner dated 04.07.2013 was quashed with the direction to the respondent to re-examine the matter in the light of the law laid down in various judgments as well as the M/O Personnel PG and Pensions, the Departmental of Pension and Pensioners’ Welfare O.M. No.38137-POPW(A) dated 06.04.2016. The Tribunal further directed that the pension be re-fixed accordingly within a period of two months and that arrears of pension be paid within two months thereafter. 4. The Tribunal further directed that the pension be re-fixed accordingly within a period of two months and that arrears of pension be paid within two months thereafter. 4. In compliance of the order dated 12.08.2016 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, the respondent authorities passed a fresh order for re-fixation of pension of the petitioner on 19.10.2016, wherein it is stated that the pension of the petitioner had already been fixed at Rs.9130/- with effect from 01.01.2006, which is higher than the minimum prescribed pension amount i.e. Rs.8145/-, as per Row 13 (corresponding to the pay scale of 2000-60-1400-75-3200-100-3500 in which the petitioner retired). It further appears from the record that the respondent earlier decided to fix the pension of the petitioner after implementing 6 th Pay Commission at Rs.9230/- vide order dated 04.07.2013. Surprisingly, in compliance of the direction given by CAT in its order dated 12.08.2016, a fresh order was passed, fixing revised pension of the petitioner at Rs.9130/-. 5. Being aggrieved by this order/letter dated 19.10.2016, the petitioner preferred a fresh Original Application bearing No.290/00071/2017 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur. The aforesaid O.A. came to be disposed of by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur vide its order dated 26.10.2018 while declaring the order dated 19.10.2016 as erroneous as well as illegal and accordingly, the same was quashed. The respondents were directed to revise the pension of the petitioner in light of the observations made in the para 13 of the said order, and four months’ time was granted to undertake the said exercise. The petitioner was also declared to be entitled for all consequential benefits. 6. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur dated 26.10.2018 preferred a review petition; however, the same came to be rejected by Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur vide its order dated 08.04.2019. The petitioner while assailing these orders in the present writ petition has asserted that the Central Administrative Tribunal as well as the respondent authorities have committed a serious error in not revising his pension in terms of the O.M. dated 01.09.2008. The grievance of the petitioner raised in the instant writ petition is that, though order dated 19.10.2016 was quashed but CAT has concluded that the pension of the petitioner should be fixed at Rs.9375/- and not at Rs.10075/- as claimed by petitioner. 7. The grievance of the petitioner raised in the instant writ petition is that, though order dated 19.10.2016 was quashed but CAT has concluded that the pension of the petitioner should be fixed at Rs.9375/- and not at Rs.10075/- as claimed by petitioner. 7. The submissions made by Shri Shyam Prasad Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner are that as per the implementation of the 6 th CPC and as per the terms of O.M. dated 01.09.2008, the pension of the petitioner is required to be revised and re-fixed in the Grade Pay of Rs.4800/- of Pay Band-2 (Rs.9300-34800) with Basic of Rs.15,350/- which comes to Rs.20,150/- (Notionally) by applying the formula as laid down in OM dated 01.09.2008, the revised pension of the petitioner should be taken to be Rs.10,075/- in the Grade Pay of Rs.4800/- of Pay Band-2 (Rs.9300-34,800) + GP 4800, as per 6 th CPC recommendations. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner while elaborating his arguments submits that the petitioner's pay should be fixed notionally in the revised pay scale (for revising of pension). It is further argued that the petitioner be extended the benefit of upgradation of the post subsequent to his retirement. The Tribunal as well as the respondents have committed serious error in not giving correct interpretation to OM dated 01.08.2009. That apart, it is further argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is entitled for the arrears with effect from 01.01.2006. It is further submitted that pay of the petitioner is to be brought corresponding to the revised pay-scale as per the 6 th CPC and then it has to be ensured that the pension fixed is such that it is not lower than 50% of the minimum of the pay in the band and grade pay. 9. Per contra, Shri B.P. Bohra, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the submission made by the petitioner. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner is not entitled to the revision of pension while considering his Grade Pay of Rs.4800/-, as there is a distinction regarding the applicability of the O.M. dated 01.09.2008 for pensioners who retired before 01.01.2006 and those who retired after 01.01.2006. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner is not entitled to the revision of pension while considering his Grade Pay of Rs.4800/-, as there is a distinction regarding the applicability of the O.M. dated 01.09.2008 for pensioners who retired before 01.01.2006 and those who retired after 01.01.2006. Learned counsel for the respondents states that Clause 4.2 of the O.M. dated 01.09.2008 cannot be interpreted to mean that there should be any equivalence in the pensions of persons who retired before 01.01.2006 and those who retired after 01.01.2006. It is further contended that there is no provision for notional fixation of revised pay for pensioners in the corresponding revised pay scale, and then revising their pension. 11. Learned counsel for the respondents further argued that the respondents are only required to ensure that revised pension of the petitioner should not be lower than 50% of minimum of revised pay scale/Pay Band+Grade Pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale attached to the post. That being so, the petitioner is not entitled to the revision of his pension to Rs.10,075/- under the 6 th CPC. 12. Learned Counsel Shri Bohra further submitted that OM dated 28.01.2013 came to be deleted vide OM dated 06.04.2016 and therefore, the petitioner cannot take advantage of the conditions mentioned in the OM dated 28.01.2013. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in its rejoinder, submitted that the deletion of the O.M. dated 28.01.2013 would not frustrate the claim for seeking the revision of his pension to Rs.10,075/- under the 6 th CPC, as the petitioner is claiming the revision of his pension based on Clause 4.2 of the O.M.dated 01.09.2008. 14. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 15. From the record, it appears that neither the petitioner nor respondents were certain about the formula to be applied for calculating revised pension after implementation of 6 th CPC. The petitioner in his original application filed in 2014 made a prayer that his pension be revised at Rs.9375/- but later he claimed that his revised pension should be at Rs.10075/-. Similarly, the respondents passed an order on 04.07.2013 after implementing 6 th CPC and fixed the pension of the petitioner of Rs.9230/. The petitioner in his original application filed in 2014 made a prayer that his pension be revised at Rs.9375/- but later he claimed that his revised pension should be at Rs.10075/-. Similarly, the respondents passed an order on 04.07.2013 after implementing 6 th CPC and fixed the pension of the petitioner of Rs.9230/. However, while implementing the order passed by the CAT dated 12.08.2016, the respondent subsequently passed an order whereby the revised pension of the petitioner was ordered to be fixed at Rs.9130/-. 16. We deem it appropriate to reproduce Clause 4.2 of the O.M.dated 01.09.2008, as the controversy in the present writ petition revolves around the interpretation of Clause 4.2 of the O.M. dated 01.09.2008, which reads as follows: “4.2 The fixation of pension will be subject to the provision that the revised pension, in no case, shall be lower than fifty percent 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, this will be fifty percent of the minimum of the revised pay scale.” 17. A bare perusal of Clause 4.2, if read with the other clauses more particularly clause 4.1 of OM dated 01.09.2008, would reveal that the said OM was introduced specifically dealing with the implementation of Government’s decision on the recommendation of the 6 th CPC, the revision of pension for pre-pensioners of 2006/family pensioners. Meaning thereby, the OM dated 01.09.2008 specifically deals with the cases like the present one, wherein the petitioner retired before 01.01.2006. In clause 4.2 of the O.M. dated 01.09.2008, it is explicitly stated that upon the implementation of the 6 th CPC, the revision of pay should be done in such a manner that the same should not be lower than 50% of the minimum pay in the Pay Band, plus the Grade Pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner has retired. 18. The above provision clearly indicates that the formula as suggested is meant for those persons who retired prior to 01.01.2006. The Tribunal, while scrutinizing as to how the existing pay band of the petitioner is to be revised under the relevant CCS (RPS) Rules 1997 and CCS (RPS) Rules 2008, noted that the petitioner retired on 28.02.1991. 18. The above provision clearly indicates that the formula as suggested is meant for those persons who retired prior to 01.01.2006. The Tribunal, while scrutinizing as to how the existing pay band of the petitioner is to be revised under the relevant CCS (RPS) Rules 1997 and CCS (RPS) Rules 2008, noted that the petitioner retired on 28.02.1991. Therefore, upgradation of pay scale cannot be made applicable on the retirees for the purpose of fixation of pension. Similarly, the same cannot be considered for retirees in the context of giving effect to provisions regarding the revision of pension under the CCA (RPS) Rules 1996 and CCA (RPS) Rules 2008. That being so, the petitioner could not equate himself with the persons who retired after 01.01.2006. The petitioner cannot seek notional pay fixation for the purpose of pension by treating himself as in service and then arriving at revised pension, which is 50% of the pay. The O.M. dated 01.09.2008 does not require re-fixing of the pay of an employee while treating him as in service. 19. It is to be noted that the OMs placed on record deals with the revision of pension. The revised pension should not be lower than 50% of the minimum revised Pay Scale/Pay Band plus Grade Pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale. That being so, very basis of the claim of the petitioner that his pay should have been fixed notionally in the revised pay scale (for revising the pension) does not exist in the OMs place on record, as relied by the petitioner. Furthermore, the benefit of upgradation of the post subsequent to the retirement would not be admissible to pre-pensioners of 2006, therefore, the petitioner who retired on 28.02.1991 would not be entitled to claim benefit of upgradation of post after his retirement and consequentially, he would not be entitled to claim his pension to be revised after extending benefit of upgradation of post. The issue as to the claim of benefit of upgradation of post subsequent to their retirement was clarified in the OM dated 11.02.2009 wherein it was stated that such upgradation is not permissible. 20. In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that Tribunal was justified in denying notional benefit to the petitioner. The issue as to the claim of benefit of upgradation of post subsequent to their retirement was clarified in the OM dated 11.02.2009 wherein it was stated that such upgradation is not permissible. 20. In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that Tribunal was justified in denying notional benefit to the petitioner. As far as fixation of pension of the petitioner after implementation of 6 th CPC is concerned, we have taken note of the fact that Tribunal has calculated the revised pension based on Annexure A/3 i.e. the document at page 29, the revised scales for certain posts in Ministries, Departments and Union Territories, the pay scale of 2000-60-2300-75-3200-100-3500 was revised to Rs.7500-250-12000 in the 5 th CPC and further revised in Pay Band – 2 Rs.9300-34,800 + Grade Pay of Rs.4800/- in the 6 th CPC. “Minimum of the pay scale of the post Rs.7500 x 1.86 (fitment of the 6 th CPC) + Rs.4800/- Grade Pay attached to the post of Rs.7500-12000 x 50%.” 21. As per the above formula, the petitioner was held to be entitled to Rs.9375/- per month as per the revised pension under the 6 th CPC, instead of Rs.9130/- and therefore, the same was slightly modified by Central Administrative Tribunal. The entitlement of the petitioner to claim Rs.9375/-per month as revised pension is based on the fact that petitioner’s pay is to be brought corresponding to the revised pay scale as per 6 th CPC and then it is to be ensured that pension fixed is not lower than 50% of the minimum pay in the band and grade pay. The respondents, while calculating revised pension, have ignored the revised pay scale of certain posts in Ministries, Departments and Union Territories and the post of the petitioner that is Postal Superintendent was included in group-B and therefore, the fixation of revision was to be calculated accordingly. 22. The claim of the petitioner that his pension should be revised to Rs.10,075/- under the 6 th CPC relying on various judgments of the Hon’ble Courts and Clause 4.2 of the OM dated 01.09.2008, is basically based on the assumption that his pension should be notionally fixed by treating him as in service and then arriving at revised pension, which is 50% of the pay. As discussed earlier, since the petitioner is not entitled to claim notional fixation of his pension, and therefore, his claim for fixing his pension at Rs.10,075/- cannot be accepted. 23. In view of the discussion above, we find no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur. 24. Though the petitioner challenged the order dated 08.04.2019 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in the review petition preferred by him against the order dated 26.10.2018, we do not find any error apparent in the order dated 26.10.2018 and therefore, Central Administrative Tribunal was right in dismissing the review petition. 25. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed. 26. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly. In D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7895/2019:- 1. The instant writ petition has been preferred on behalf of the petitioners-Union of India and Ors. challenging the order passed by Central Administrative Tribunal dated 26.10.2018, whereby the order dated 19.10.2016 passed by the Director of Accounts (Postal), Ministry of Communications and Information Technology, Department of Posts, Jaipur was quashed and it was further held that the petitioner is entitled to revision of the pension to Rs.9375/- per month in revising pension in 6 th CPC instead of Rs.9130/-. 2. In view of the detailed discussion made in the writ petition bearing D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7818/2019, we do not find any grounds to interfere in the order dated 26.10.2018 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur. 3. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed as being devoid of merits. 4. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.