Click the Play button to listen to article

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu has held that an employee who retired prior to the implementation of the 6th Central Pay Commission cannot claim parity with those who retired after the year 2006 for the purpose of refixation of pension.

The Court held that the pension of a pre-2006 retiree must be refixed only in accordance with the specific orders issued by the Central Government in this regard, and not in the manner applicable to employees who were in service at the time the 6th CPC came into effect. The Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the rejection of a representation seeking refixation of pension.

The Court was hearing a writ petition filed challenging an order whereby the representation of the petitioner for refixation of his pension was rejected. The petitioner, who retired as an Assistant Master, TGT (Senior Scale) from Sainik School, Nagrota in 2003, sought refixation of his pension under the 6th CPC, contending that he was wrongly granted a Grade Pay of Rs. 4200 instead of Rs. 4800, and that full pension was not sanctioned in his favour despite the pro-rata reduction having been done away with.

The petition was heard by Justice Sanjay Dhar, who observed,

“The petitioner having retired prior to the year 2006, cannot claim parity with those who have retired after the year 2006.”

Background

The petitioner was appointed as a Hostel Superintendent at Sainik School, Nagrota on 02.05.1982 and retired from service on resignation in the year 2003 as Assistant Master, TGT (Senior Scale). At the time of his retirement, his pay scale was Rs. 6500-200-10500 under the 5th CPC. The 6th CPC was made applicable to the academic and non-academic staff of Sainik Schools with effect from 01.01.2006.

According to the petitioner, an error occurred while fixing his pension at the time of implementing the 6th CPC. It was submitted that the corresponding scale of pay under the 6th CPC for the post he held was Rs. 9300-34800 with a Grade Pay of Rs. 4800, but he was wrongly given a Grade Pay of Rs. 4200.

Consequently, this error was carried forward during the refixation of his pension under the 7th CPC. Another grievance of the petitioner was that he was not given full pension because he had not completed 33 years of service, despite an Office Memorandum dated 06.04.2016 providing that the revised consolidated pension of pre-2006 pensioners shall not be lower than 50% of the minimum of the pay band and grade pay without pro-rata reduction, even if the employee had less than 33 years of qualifying service.

The respondents contended that as per an Office Memorandum dated 09.07.2019, the pension of pre-2006 pensioners having a pre-revised pay scale of Rs. 6500-200-10500 in the 5th CPC was to be scaled to a Grade Pay of Rs. 4600, not Rs. 4800. It was submitted that the petitioner's pension was accordingly refixed with a Grade Pay of Rs. 4600, and after the issuance of the Office Memorandum, full pension had been sanctioned in his favour.

Court's Observation

The Court observed that the petitioner had retired before the implementation of the 6th CPC recommendations and its adoption by the Sainik Schools. The Court held,

“The petitioner, as such, cannot claim revision of his pension in the corresponding scale as would be admissible to those employees who have retired after the implementation of 6th CPC.”

The Court noted that the Central Government had issued an Office Memorandum in 2013 providing that the pension of pre-2006 pensioners would be revised in the manner provided in the Annexure. As per the Annexure, pre-2006 pensioners drawing pension in the pay scale of Rs. 6500-200-10500 were to get their pension refixed in the pay scale of Rs. 9300-34800 with a Grade Pay of Rs. 4200. This was subsequently modified in 2019, and a Grade Pay of Rs. 4600 was to be taken into account.

The Court held,

“Since the petitioner has retired before coming into effect of 6th CPC, therefore, his pension has to be refined only in accordance with the specific orders issued by the Central Government in this regard and not in the manner as provided in the case of the employees who were in service at the time of coming into effect of 6th CPC.”

Regarding the petitioner's contention that the Sainik Schools Society is an independent body and the Central Government orders are not ipso facto applicable, the Court rejected the argument. The Court noted that the Sainik Schools Society, while adopting the 6th CPC in favour of its employees, had specifically provided that it shall be on the same pattern as admissible to the Central Government employees. The Court held,

“Therefore, any Office Memorandum or instruction, which is issued by the Government of India bearing reference to implementation of 6th CPC becomes automatically applicable to the employees/pensioners of the Sainik Schools.”

On the second grievance regarding full pension, the Court noted that the respondents had clearly stated in their response that the same had already been addressed by giving the benefit of full pension to the petitioner.

Finding no merit in the petition, the Court dismissed it.


Tags: