CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH …team.org.in/pdf/Judgment_of_CAT_for_Retired_Servicelength_Reduction.pdfThe recommendation regarding payment of full pension on completion

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

PRINCIPAL BENCH

OA 1165/2011

with

OA 2165/2011

And

OA 246/2012

New Delhi this the 21st day of April, 2015

Hon�ble Mr. P.K. Basu, Member (A)

Hon�ble Mr. Raj Vir Sharma, Member (J)

OA 1165/2011

1. Pratap Narayan

Executive Director (Retired)

FICC, Min. of Fertilizers

R/o C-47, Friends Colony East

New Delhi-110065

2. Ambrish Agarwal

General Manager (Retd). DOT

R/o 184 New Gandhi Nagar

Ghaziabad-201001

3. A. Rajagopalan

Dy. DG (Retd.), GSI

R/o A 17, Indiradevi Apts.,

18, Gopala Krishna Street,

T. Nagar, Chennai-600017

4. R.S. Bindra

General Manager (Retd.),

Ordnance Factory

R/o House No.2595, Sector-61,

S.A.S. Nagar,

Chandigarh-160062

5. C.A. Krishnamurthi

Controller of Stores (Retd.),

Rail Wheel Factory

R/o B-1/23, 4-B Cross Road,

New Town, Yelahanka,

Bangalore-560106

6. M.P. Singhal

Chief Engineer Bridges (Retd.),

Northern Railway

R/o D-7411, Vasant Kunj,

New Delhi-110070

7. K.K. Taneja

Dy. Director General (TD)

R/o G-238, Sarita Vihar

New Delhi-110076

8. P.S. Gopalakrishnan

Scientist G, NAL

R/o 964, 3rd Cross, I Main

HAL, 3rd Stage,

Bangalore-560075

9. B.R. Kulkarni

Chief Engineer (Retd.),

Central Railway

R/o F6/2, Sector-3,

CBD Belapur,

Navi Mumbai-400614

10. B.M. Misra

Scientific Officer (Retd.), DAE

R/o 501, Emerald Heights,

32 Union Park, Chembur

11. S.C. Pandian

Chief Engineer (Retd.),

Central Railway

R/o 403 Indraprastha Tower,

Plots 11-12, Sector-29

Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400703

12. L.D. Prabhakar

Chairman, RRB (Retd.),

R/o 183, West Park Road,

Malleswaram West,

Bangalore-560055

13. M.R. Narsimchar

R/o 92, 9th Cross Road,

RMV Extension,

Bangalore-560080

14. D. Nagarajan

Chief Rolling Stock Engineer,

Southern Railway

R/o 10-2-365, Royal Villa-301,

West Marco Pally,

Secunderabad-500026

15. S. Kasy Aiyer

Chief Rolling Stock Engineer, Southern Railway

R/o No.5, Fourth Cross Street,

Jayaramnagar Teachers Colony,

Thiruvanmiyur,

Chennai-600041

16. N. Sundararajan

Stenographer (Retd), DAE

R/o D-7/6, KAPS Township,

P.O. Anumala-394651,

Tapi Distt., Gujarat

17. D.N. Seshagiri

Director (Retd), GSI

R/o 4/47, 3rd Main Road,

Swaminatha Nagar,

Kottivakam,

Chennai-600041

18. S.K. Gupta

Addl. CSTE (Retd), Central Railway

R/o 2, Shanti Apts.,

810 Wright Town,

Jabalpur-482002

19. V. Rengamannar

Director (Retd), GSI

R/o 5/61, Illathar Street

Viswanathperi, Sivagiri

Tirunelveli-627763

20. P.G. Narayanan

Senior Professor (Retd) IRISET

R/o 23 Heritage Homes, Thaltej

Ahmedabad-380059

21. Siddheswar Banerjee

Director, SG, (Retd), GSI

R/o Preyasi Apartments,

331, Garia Station Road,

Kolkata-700084

22. J.S. Chhabra

General Managar (Retd), DAE

R/o 216, Jai Apartments,

Plot No.35, Sector 9

Rohini, Delhi-110085

23. Abhijit Purkayastha

Dy. DG (Retd), Ordnance Factory Board

R/o B17/262, Kendriya Vihar,

VIP Road,

Kolkata-700052

24. A.A. Sahay

Chief Electrical Project Engineer (Retd),

Central Railway,

R/o B-1/1291, Vasant Kunj,

New Delhi-110070

25. G.S. Ahluwalia

Dy. Director General (Retd),

Ordnance Factory Board,

R/o H.No. 344, Sector-44-A,

Chandigarh

26. G. Balasubrahmanyam

Director (Retd), Central Ground Water Board

R/o Flat B-2, Balaji Towers

74, 10th Avenue, Ashok Nagar,

Chennai

27. R. Asoka,

Chief Project Manager (Retd.), Rail Wheel Factory

R/o 143, 12th Main, 23rd Cross

3rd Block East, Jaynagar,

Bangalore-560011

28. M.S. Bhat,

Controller of Stores (Retd), N.F. Railway

R/o �SHRILA�, MARIL,

PUTTUR-574202

29. S.V. Ramana Rao

Scientist (Retd.), Department of Space,

R/o Plot No.6, Sitaram Nagar,

Sikh Village,

Secunderabad-500009 � Applicants

(Through Shri S.K. Malik, Advocate)

Versus

Union of India through

1. Secretary,

Ministry of Personnel, P.G. & Pensions,

Deptt. of Pensions & Pensioners Welfare

Lok Nayak Bhawan,

New Delhi-110003

2. Secretary

Deptt. of Expenditure

Ministry of Finance,

Central Secretariat

North Block, New Delhi-110001 � Respondents

(Through Sh.Rajesh Katyal and Sh. D.S. Mahendru, Advocates)

OA 2165/2011

1. K.R. Srinivasan (Dr.)

Flat No.II, Floor III

Swathi Court

43, Vijaya Raghwan Road

T. Nagar, Chennai-600017

2. Josyalu Venkat Sastry

Flat No. 510,

Gharuna Seshasayee Appts.,

Vijaypuri Colony, Tarnaka,

Hyderabad (A.P.)-500017

3. N. Venkateshwarlu

A-203, Sharda Nivas

6th Main, 15th Cross

Indira Nagar-II

Bangalore-560038

4. KVR Chaitanya Swamy

13606, Sand Mountain Lane

Houston, TX, 7704 (USA)

5. MV Ramarao

11-1-16, Prakasham Street

Ramaraopeth, Kakinada-533004

6. V.Veerendra Kumar

Vadavathi House

Near old Road

P.O.Kuthuparamba

Distt. Kannaur, Kerala-670643

7. Madhumeet Cheema (Mrs.)

J-10/28

DLF, City-II

Gurgaon (Haryana) � 122002 �.Applicants


VERSUS


1. Secretary,



Lok Nayak Bhawan,

New Delhi-110003

2. Secretary



Central Secretariat



OA 247/2012

1. S.B. Roy

Retd. Group General Manager, CONCOR

(on deputation from Indian Railways)

R/o 1 CRIS Officers Flats

Delhi Flying Club Road

New Delhi-110003

2. M. Radhakrishna

Retd. Chief Electrical Engineer, Indian Railways

R/o Flat SF 1, `Alpine Court�

17/1, 7th B Main Road

Jakkasandra Block, Koramangala

Bangalore-560034

3. Rahul Jha

Retd. Group General Manager, RITES


R/o 599 Padam Bahadur Mal Block

Asiad Village, New Delhi-110049

4. Sanjay Misra

Retd. Executive Director, Railway Board

R/o Tower 6, Flat 601

Sohna Road, Gurgaon-122018

5. Dr. Seshadri Kannan

Retd. Scientific Officer, BARC

R/o 38/1-B Devi Apts.

South Mada Street

Thiruvanmiyur,

Chennai-600041

6. M.R. Laljani


R/o D-164, Anand Vihar

Delhi-110092

7. P.N. Kalra


R/o B-9, Anand Vihar

Delhi-110092

8. V.K. Sharma

Retd. Conservator of Forests

R/o A-251, Meera Bagh,

Delhi-110087

9. M.H. Manwani

Retd. Chief Engineer, Indian Railways

R/o 6 Virgo Ville, Sherly Rajan Road,

Bandra (West),

Mumbai-400050

10. R.K. Bansal


R/o A1/F-28, DDA Flats

Panchsheel Enclave,

New Delhi-110017

11. Atul Sud


R/o Flat No.42-B, Pocket C

Siddharth Extension

New Delhi-110014

12. Y.B. Sharma

Retd. Group General Manager, RITES


R/o 38, Rohit Apartments,

Sector-10, Plot 30

Dwarka, New Delhi-110075

13. Uday Shankar Jha


R/o 902, Chhadva Residency, Motibagh

Behind Maitri Park, ST Stand

Chembur, Mumbai-400071

14. Dinesh Kumar Shukla,

Retd. Executive Director, IFFCO


R/o A-201, IRWO Classic Apartments

Sector 57, Gurgaon-122003

15. Subhash Chandra Saxena

Retd. General Manager, RITES


R/o 3/1 Aravali View Rail Vihar,

Sector 56, Gurgaon-122003

16. Sumit Sinha

Retd. ADRM, Eastern Railway,

R/o 646, Asian Games Village,

New Delhi-110049

17. Bhushan Kumar Makhija

Retd. Chief Engineer, Central Railway,

R/o E-220, Palam Vihar,

Gurgaon-122017 �.Applicants


Versus


1. Secretary,



Lok Nayak Bhawan,

New Delhi-110003

2. Secretary



Central Secretariat



ORDER

Mr. P.K. Basu, Member (A)

OA 1165/2011, OA 2165/2011 and OA 247/2012, all deal with the same issue and, therefore, are

being disposed off through this common order.

2. The prayer of the applicants arises from a clarification issued by the Department of Pension and

Pensioners� Welfare dated 3.10.2008, in specific challenging the following provision:

�The pension will be reduced pro-rata, where the pensioner has less than the maximum required service

for full pension as per rule 49 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 as applicable on 01.01.2006 and in no

case it will be less than Rs.3500/- p.m.�

3. The background of the case is that after the VI Pay Commission submitted its report, the

government issued OM dated 1.09.2008 relating to revision of pension of pre-2006 pensioners/ family

pensioners etc. Para 4.2 of the OM provides 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.�

4. Thereafter, the respondents issued the above mentioned OM dated 3.10.2008 in which the

clarification was issued that pension will be reduced pro-rata where the pensioner had less than the

maximum required service for full pension of 33 years. The Department of Pension and Pensioners�

Welfare vide resolution dated 29.08.2008 introduced the revised pension structure with effect from

1.01.2006. In this, the recommendation of the Pay Commission and the decision of the government

were elaborated. The paragraphs relevant to this case are quoted below:

S.No.

Recommendation

Decision of Government

2.

Linkage of full pension with 33 years of qualifying service should be dispensed with. Once an employee

renders the minimum pensionable service of 20 years, pension should be paid at 50% of the average

emoluments received during the past 10 months or the pay last drawn, whichever is more beneficial to

the retiring employee. Simultaneously, the extant benefit of adding years of qualifying service for

purposes of computing pension/related benefits should be withdrawn as it would no longer be relevant

(5.1.33)

Accepted

3.

The recommendation regarding payment of full pension on completion of 20 years of qualifying service

will take effect only prospectively for all Government employees other than PBORs in Defence Forces

from the date it is accepted by the Government (6.5.3.)

Accepted

12.

All past pensioners should be allowed fitment benefit equal to 40% of the pension excluding the effect

of merger of 50% dearness allowance/dearness relief as pension (in respect of pensioners retiring on or

after 1/4/2004) and dearness pension (for other pensioners) respectively. The increase will be allowed

by subsuming the effect of conversion of 50% of dearness relief/dearness allowance as dearness

pension/dearness pay. Consequently, dearness relief at the rate of 74% on pension (excluding the effect

of merger) has been taken for the purposes of computing revised pension as on 1/1/2006. This is

consistent with the fitment benefit being allowed in case of the existing employees. 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 sum of the minimum of the pay in the pay band and the grade pay thereon corresponding

to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired. (5.1.47).

Accepted with the modification that fixation of pension shall be based on a multiplication factor of 1.86,

i.e. basic pension + Dearness Pension (wherever applicable) + dearness relief of 24% as on 1.1.2006,

instead of 1.74.

The respondents further issued an OM dated 19.03.2010, which is reproduced below:

�The undersigned is directed to say that orders for revision of pension/family pension of pre-2006

pensioners were issued vide this Department�s OM of even number dated 01.09.2008. Para 4.1 of that

OM lays down the manner in which the pension/family pension of pre-2006 pensioners is to be

consolidated w.e.f.1.1.2006. In accordance with these instructions, a fitment weightage @ 40% of the

pre-2006 basic pension/family pension (excluding the merged dearness relief of 50%) is to be given for

revision of the pension of pre-2006 pensioners/family pensioners.

2. Para 4.2 of the aforesaid OM further provides that 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 . It was clarified in the OM dated 3.10.2008 that the pension calculated at 50% of

the minimum of pay in the pay band plus grade pay would be calculated at the minimum of the pay in

the pay band (irrespective of the pre-revised scale of pay) plus the grade pay corresponding to the pre-

revised pay scale. The pension will be reduced pro-rata, where the pensioner had less than the

maximum required service for full pension as per rule 49 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 as applicable

before 1.1.2006 and in no case it will be less than Rs.3500/- p.m. The fixation of family pension will be

subject to the provision that the revised family pension, in no case, shall be lower than thirty percent of

the sum of the minimum of the pay in the pay band and the grade pay thereon corresponding to the

pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired. A Table indicating the revised pension

based on revised pay bands and grade pay was also annexed with this Department�s OM dated

14.10.2008.

3. A large number of representations/references were received in the Department in regard to the

provisions of para 4.2 of the OM dated 1.9.2008 and it was clarified in this Department�s OM of even

number dated 11.2.2009 that the instructions/clarifications issued in this regard were in consonance

with the decision of the Government on the recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay Commission and

no change was required to be made in this respect.

4. In spite of the above clarifications, representations are still being received from pre-2006

pensioners (including those who retired from the pre-revised S-29 pay scale i.e. Rs.18400-22400) for

higher revised pension in terms of para 4.2 of the OM dated 1.9.2008. Representations have also been

received demanding a higher fitment weightage to the pre-2006 pensioners in revision of pension in

terms of Para 4.1 of the said OM.

5. These representations have been examined in consultation with Ministry of Finance. It is

reiterated that orders relating to revision of pension of pre-2006 pensioners/family pensioners have

been correctly issued as per the recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay Commission and no change

is required to be made in this respect.

6. All references/representations received in this Department on the above issues stand disposed

off accordingly.�

5. The above OM basically reiterated the OM dated 3.10.2008 namely that there will be pro-rata

reduction. In all the three OAs, the applicants have challenged the OM dated 3.10.2008 claiming that it

is violative of the law laid down by the Hon�ble Supreme Court in D.S. Nakara Vs. Union of India, 1983

SCC (L&S) 145. The prayer made is that their pension should be fixed in accordance with para 4.2

quoted above ensuring parity between pensioners who have retired pre-1.01.2006 and post-1.01.2006.

The question before us is, therefore, whether the date of retirement is a relevant consideration for

eligibility when a revised formula for computation of pension is ushered in and made effective from a

specified date. This was precisely the point which was before the Hon�ble Supreme Court in D.S. Nakara

(supra). The question that was raised by their Lordships of the Hon�ble Supreme Court in para 2 of the

judgment reads as follows:

�2. Do pensioners entitled to receive superannuation or retiring pension under Central Civil Services

(Pension) Rules, 1972 ('1972 Rules' for short) form a class as a whole'? Is the date of retirement a

relevant consideration for eligibility when a revised formula for computation of pension is ushered in

and made effective from a specified date? Would differential treatment to pensioners related to the

date of retirement qua the revised formula for computation of pension attract Article 14 of the

Constitution and the element of discrimination liable to be declared unconstitutional as being violative

of Article 14? These and the related questions debated in this group of petitions call for an answer in the

backdrop of a welfare State and bearing in mind that pension is a socio-economic justice measure

providing relief when advancing age gradually but irrevocably impairs capacity to stand on one's own

feet.�

and the Hon�ble Supreme Court answered the questions as follows:

�(1) Pension is neither a bounty not a matter of grace depending upon the sweet will of the

employer, nor an ex gratia payment. It is a payment for the past service rendered. It is a social welfare

measure rendering socio-economic justice to those who in the hey-day of their life ceaselessly toiled

for the employer on an assurance that in their old age they would not be left in lurch. Pension as a

retirement benefit is in consonance with and furtherance of the goals of the Constitution. The most

practical raison d�etre for pension is the inability to provide for oneself due to old age. It creates a

vested right and is governed by the statutory rules such as the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules

which are enacted in exercise of power conferred by Article 309 and 148 (5) of the Constitution.

xxxx xxxx xxxx

In the present case Article 14 is wholly violated inasmuch as the pension rules being statutory in

character, the amended rules, since the specified date, accord differential and discriminatory treatment

to equals in the matter of commutation of pension. It would have a traumatic effect on those who

retired just before that date. This division which classified pensioners into two classes is artificial and

arbitrary, is not based on any rational principle and whatever principle, if there be any, has not only no

nexus to the objects sought to be achieved by liberalizing the pension rules, but is counter-productive

and runs counter to the whole gamut of the pension scheme. Further, there is not a single acceptable or

persuasive reason for this division. Therefore, the classification does not stand the test of Article 14.

xxxx xxxx xxxx

Date of retirement cannot form a valid criterion for classification, for if that be the criterion those who

retire at the end of every month shall form a class by themselves. This is too microscopic a classification

to be upheld for any valid purpose.

xxxx xxxx xxxx

The basic principle which informs both Articles 14 and 16 is equality and inhibition against

discrimination. Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness because any action that is arbitrary must necessarily

involve negation of equality. Article 14 forbids class legislation but permits reasonable classification for

the purpose of legislation which classification must satisfy the twin tests of classification being founded

on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from those

that are left out of the group and that differentia must have a rational nexus to the object sought to be

achieved by the statute in question.�

6. Learned counsel for the applicants also cited V. Kasturi Vs. Managing Director, State Bank of

India, Bombay and another, (1998) 8 SCC 30 in which the Hon�ble Supreme Court held as follows:

�If the person retiring is eligible for pension at the time of his retirement and if he survives till the time

of subsequent amendment of the relevant pension scheme, he would become eligible to get enhanced

pension or would become eligible to get more pension as per the new formula of computation of

pension. He would be entitled to get the benefit of the amended pension provision from the date of

such order as he would be a member of the very same class of pensioners when the additional benefit is

being conferred on all of them. In such a situation, the additional benefit available to the same class of

pensioners cannot be denied to him on the ground that he had retired prior to the date on which the

aforesaid additional benefit was conferred.�

Similarly, the learned counsel for the applicants also relied on the judgment of the Hon�ble Supreme

Court in T.S. Thiruvengadam Vs. Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of

Expenditure, New Delhi and others, (1993) 2 SCC 174 in which it was held as follows:

�The object of bringing into existence the revised terms and conditions in the memorandum dated June

16, 1967 was to protect the pensionary benefits which the Central Government servants had earned

before their absorption into the public undertakings. Restricting the applicability of the revised

memorandum only to those who are absorbed after the coming into force of the said memorandum,

would be defeating the very object and purpose of the revised memorandum and contrary to fair play

and justice.

There is no substance in the contention that the revised benefits being new it could only be prospective

in operation and cannot be extended to employees who were absorbed earlier. The memorandum

dated June 16, 1967 is prospective which only means that the benefits therein can be claimed only after

June 16, 1967. The memorandum, however, takes into consideration the past event that is the period of

service under the Central Government for the purposes of giving pro rata pension. Whoever has

rendered pensionable service prior to coming into force of the memorandum would be entitled to claim

the benefits under the said memorandum. Restricting the benefits only to those who were absorbed in

public undertakings after June 16, 1967 is arbitrary and hit by Article 14 & 16.

The appellant was permitted to be absorbed in the

Central Government public undertaking in public interest. The appellant, as such, shall be deemed to

have retired from Government service from the date of his absorption and is eligible to receive the

retirement benefits. Though the retirement benefits envisaged under Rule 37 are to be determined in

accordance with the Government orders but the plain language of the rule does not permit any

discrimination while granting the retirement benefits.

Appeal allowed.�

7. This Tribunal (full Bench) had also examined a similar issue in OA 937/2010 decided along with

OA 2101/2010. In those cases, the prayer made was to remove discrimination between pre-2006 and

post-2006 retirees as regards their pension, who were in the pay scale S-30 i.e. Rs.22400-525-24500.

The matter was examined in depth considering the judgments of the Hon�ble Supreme Court in D.S.

Nakara (supra), Union of India Vs. S.P.S. Vains, (2008) 9 SCC 125, Union of India Vs. P.N. Menon, JT 1994

(3) SC 26, State of Punjab and others Vs. Amar Nath Goyal and others, 2005 SCC (L&S) 910, Union of

India Vs. S.R. Dhingra and others, (2008) 2 SCC 229, Government of Andhra Pradesh and ors. Vs. N.

Subbarayudu and others, 2008 (4) SLR 136 and Bank of India and another Vs. K. Mohandas and others,

2009 (5) SCC 313. The OAs were allowed vide order dated 20.11.2014 and the Tribunal gave the

following directions:

�We direct the respondents to consider the revised pay of the applicants corresponding to the pay at

which the concerned pensioner had in fact retired, instead of considering the minimum of the said pay

scale, thereby determining pension/ family pension to pre-2006 retirees.�

8. The learned counsel for the respondents has filed detailed reply primarily explaining how

pension of pre-2006 and post-2006 retirees has to be fixed. It is reiterated that the government had

accepted the recommendation regarding payment of full pension on completion of twenty years�

service, prospectively. Therefore, this cannot be given retrospective effect now. It is further stated that

in the order dated 6.03.2012 (Annexure A-7), disposing of the OAs No. 937/2010 and 2101/2010, this

Tribunal (Full Bench) made the following observations/directions in regard to the prayer of the

applicants seeking complete parity with post-2006 retirees:-

�2�..One of the reliefs sought for by the applicants in those OAs is that pre-2006 pensioners may be

allowed a total parity with post 1.1.2006 pensioners by notionally revising their pay as on 1.1.2006 and

then fixing pension at 50% of that notional pay.

3. At the outset, it may be stated here that the issue regarding admissibility of pension/family

pension to the pre 1.1.2006 retiree officers belonging to S-29 scale and also whether the 2006

pensioners are entitled to the pension/family pension at par with post 2006 retiree officers has been

considered and decided by the Full Bench of the Tribunal in Central Government SAG (S-29) Pensioners�

Association and another Vs Union of India and another (OA 655/2010 with connected matters) decided

on 1.11.2011 after taking into consideration the decisions of Apex Court in D.S. Nakara Vs. S.P.S. Vains

(2008)9 SCC 125) and the said relief has been rejected. The Full Bench of this Tribunal in the aforesaid

judgment has held that pre-2006 retirees cannot claim benefit at par with post-2006 retirees, who are

governed by the separate set of scheme and also that the judgment in the case of S.P.S.Vains (supra)

was rendered in the different facts and circumstances of the case and relates to the Army personnel and

based on the premise of �one rank one pension�. However, regarding admissibility of pension based on

modified parity, as recommended by the Pay Commission and accepted by resolution dated 29.8.2008,

direction was given to the respondents to re-fix the pension and pay the arrears to all pre-2006 retirees

belonging to S-29 scale of pay, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the

order. Thus, the aforesaid issue stands decided of in the light of the reasoning given by the Full Bench of

this Tribunal for parity of reasoning given therein.�

9. The respondents further argue that in its order dated 1.11.2011 in the OA No. 655/2010

referred to in the aforesaid order dated 6.3.2012 in the OAs No.937/2010 and 2101/2010, this Tribunal

(full bench) decided that the challenge made by the applicants based upon the judgment in D.S. Nakara

that pre-2006 retirees should be extended the same pensionary benefits as that of post-2006 retirees

cannot be accepted. It is stated that in para 9 of the judgment, this Tribunal also rejected the prayer for

grant of full pension on completion of 20 years of qualifying service at par with post-2006 retirees and

observed that the pre-2006 retirees cannot claim benefit at par with post-2006 retirees, who are

governed by the separate set of scheme.

10. It is further added on behalf of the respondents that the applicants in the above mentioned OAs

No.937/2010 and 2101/2010 filed writ petitions being WP No. 4572/2012 and WP 7342/2012 in the

High Court of Delhi. Hon�ble High Court of Delhi in its order dated 19.8.2013 (Annexure A-9) passed the

following order:

�8. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, none of which are disputed by learned counsel for the

respondents, with consent of learned counsel for the parties we set aside the impugned decision(s)

dated March 06,2012 and simultaneously we restore OA No.937/2010 and OA No.2101/2010 for fresh

adjudication on merits by the Tribunal on the claim of the petitioners for full parity. The decision shall be

rendered after giving full opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and the decision dated November 01,

2011 passed by the Tribunal in the case of S-29 scale retirees shall not be treated as binding upon it by

the Tribunal for the reasons on the subject of full parity the said decision was pronounced

notwithstanding said retirees giving up the claim for full parity.�

Thus Hon�ble High Court remanded back the OA No.937/2010 and OA No.No.2101/2010 for fresh

adjudication on merits by this Hon�ble Tribunal on the claim of the petitioners for �full parity�. As

stated earlier, these OAs were accordingly heard by this Tribunal (Full Bench) and order dated

20.11.2014 passed.

11. We have gone through various judgments of the Hon�ble Supreme Court in various cases and

also this Tribunal�s order dated 20.11.2014 in OA 937/2010 with OA 2101/2010. The law has by now

been well settled by the Hon�ble Supreme Court that the date of retirement cannot form a valid

criterion for classification. It is held by their Lordships that any clarification has to be founded on an

intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from those that

are left out of the group and that differentia must have a rational nexus to the object sought to be

achieved by the statute in question.

13. In view of the judgments of the Hon�ble Supreme Court

in D.S. Nakara (supra), V. Kasturi (supra), T.S. Thiruvengadam (supra) and order of the Full Bench of the

Tribunal in OA 937/2010 with OA 2101/2010 dated 20.11.2014, we are of the opinion that the prayer in

the OAs is fully justified. We, therefore, quash and set aside the impugned orders dated 3.10.2008 and

19.03.2010 being violative of law laid down by the Hon�ble Supreme Court and direct the respondents

that the qualifying service for earning full pension will be treated as twenty years also for those who

retired from the Central Government service on or before 31.12.2005 and were alive on that day. The

respondents are also directed to modify/amend all relevant government orders/ letters/ notifications in

accordance with the above decision. It is made clear that this parity of pension between pre and post-

1.01.2006 pensioners (on the question of eligibility of minimum pensionable service of twenty years)

would apply both as regards pension and family pension. The respondents are granted three months�

time from the date of receipt of this order for implementation of directions contained in this order.

(Raj Vir Sharma) ( P.K. Basu)

Member (J) Member (A)

Documents

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH …team.org.in/pdf/Judgment_of_CAT_for_Retired_Servicelength_Reduction.pdfThe recommendation regarding payment of full pension on completion