RAGHUVIR SINGH PANWAR vs UNION OF INDIA TH MINISTRY OF DEFENCE NEW DELHI AND OTHERS

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU, KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU

Reserved on 14.10.2026
Pronounced on 30.10.2026
Uploaded on 30.10.2026

Whether the operative part
or full Judgment is pronounced: Full

WP(C) No. 1619/2023



Raghuvir Singh Panwar …..Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)


Through: Mr. Satinder Gupta, Adv.
Q
vs


Union of India and others .…. Respondent(s)

Through: Mr. Vishal Sharma, DSGI with
Mr. Karan Sharma, CGSC



Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE




JUDGMENT


1. The petitioner, through the medium of present petition, has challenged order
dated 04.11.2022 issued by respondent No. 2, whereby his representation for
refixation of his pension has been rejected.
2. Briefly stated the facts emanating from the pleadings of the parties are that the
petitioner was appointed as Hostel Superintendent at Sainik School, Nagrota on
02.05.1982 and he retired from service on resignation in the year 2003 as
Assistant Master, TGT(Senior Scale) on 30.09.2003. The pay scale of the
petitioner at the time of his retirement i.e. on 30.09.2003 was ₹6500-200-10500
th th
[5 Central Pay Commission(CPC)]. The 6 CPC was made applicable to the
academic and non-academic staff of the Sainik Schools with effect from
th
01.01.2006, whereas 7 CPC was made applicable to the employees of the
Sainik Schools with effect from 01.01.2016.
Rakesh Kumar
2026.10.19 02:15
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

3. According to the petitioner, an error has taken place, while fixation of his
th
pension at the time of implementing 6 Central Pay Commission(CPC). It has
been submitted that the Pay Scale of Assistant Master, TGT Senior Scale under
th th
5 CPC was ₹6500-200-10500 and its corresponding scale of pay under 6
CPC is ₹9300-34800 with Grade Pay of ₹4800/-. It has been submitted that the
petitioner was wrongly given Grade Pay of ₹4200/- instead of ₹4800/- at the
th
time of refixation of his pension under 6 CPC. Since the computation and
refixation of the pension of the petitioner was wrongly made at the time of
th
implementation of 6 CPC, consequently an error has crept in refixation of his
th
pension at the time of implementation of 7 CPC.
4. Another grievance of the petitioner is that he was not given full pension
because he had not completed 33 years of service at the time of his retirement
and now in terms of Office Memorandum dated 06.04.2016 of the Government
of India, it has been provided that the revised consolidated pension of pre-2006
pensioners shall not be lower than 50% of the minimum of the pay band and
the grade pay without pro-rata reduction of pension even if, an employee had
qualifying service of less than 33 years at the time of retirement.
5. In their reply to the writ petition, the respondents have taken a stand that as per
Office Memorandum bearing Memo No. 38/33/12-P&PW(A) dated
09.07.2019, issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Defence, the
pension of pre-2006 pensioners having pre-revised pay scale of ₹6500-200-
th
10500 in 5 CPC has been scaled to Grade Pay of ₹4600/-. Earlier the
Government of India vide Office Memorandum dated 01.09.2008 had decided
th
to implement the recommendations of 6 CPC in favour of the
pensioners/family pensioners with effect from 01.01.2006 and vide Office
WP(C) No. 1619/2023 Page 2 of 5

Memorandum dated 28.01.2013 issued by the Government of India, pension of
pre-2006 pensioners, who had retired in the pay scale of ₹6500-200-10500 was
revised to ₹9300-34800 with Grade Pay of ₹4200/-. It has further been
submitted that now vide Office Memorandum dated 09.07.2019, issued by the
Government of India, it has been provided that revision of pension with effect
th
from 01.01.2006 of pre-2006 pensioners, who had retired in 5 CPC in the pay
th
scale of ₹6500-200-10500, would be based on corresponding pay band in 6
CPC with Grade Pay of ₹4600/- instead of ₹4200/-.
6. The respondents have submitted that now the revised pension of the petitioner
th
has been refixed in the revised grade under 6 CPC with Grade Pay of ₹4600/-
and after the issuance of Office Memorandum dated 06.04.2016, full pension
has been sanctioned in his favour.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record of the case.
th
8. The grievance of the petitioner is twofold. One that under 6 Central Pay
th
Commission(CPC) scale of pay, corresponding to ₹6500-200-10500 (5 CPC)
in which the petitioner was working before his retirement, is ₹9300-34800 with
Grade Pay of ₹4800/-, but while refixation of his pension at the time of
th
implementation of 6 CPC recommendations, instead of Grade Pay of ₹4800/,
his pension has been calculated on the basis of Grade Pay of ₹4200/-. The
second grievance of the petitioner is that full pension has not been sanctioned
in his favour despite pro-rata reduction of pension having been done away with.
9. In the above context, it is to be noted that the petitioner had retired before
th
implementation of 6 CPC recommendations and its adoption by the Sainik
Schools. The petitioner, as such, cannot claim revision of his pension in the
corresponding scale as would be admissible to those employees who have
WP(C) No. 1619/2023 Page 3 of 5

th
retired after implementation of 6 CPC. In the case of pre-2006 retirees, their
pension is to be revised in accordance with the specific orders issued by the
Government of India from time to time.
10. In the present case, the Central Government, in the first instance, issued Office
th
Memorandum dated 01.09.2008 thereby giving benefit of 6 Central Pay
Commission to the pensioners who have retired before the year 2006. Vide
Office Memorandum dated 28.01.2013 issued by the Central Government, it
has been provided that pension of pre-2006 pensioners would be revised upon
th
adoption of 6 CPC in the manner as provided in the Annexure to the said
Office Memorandum. As per Serial No. 13 of the said Annexure, the pre-2006
pensioners, who were drawing pension in the pay scale of ₹6500-200-10500
were to get their pension refixed in the pay scale of ₹9300-34800 with Grade
Pay of ₹4200/-. This Office Memorandum was modified vide Office
Memorandum dated 09.07.2019 and Grade Pay of ₹4600/- instead of ₹4200/-
was to be taken into account in the case of pre-2006 pensioners, who retired in
th
5 CPC scale of ₹6500-200-10500. Since the petitioner has retired before
th
coming into effect of 6 CPC, therefore, his pension has to be refixed 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
th
were in service at the time of coming into effect of 6 CPC. The petitioner
having retired prior to the year 2006, cannot claim parity with those who have
retired after the year 2006.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Sainik Schools
Society, even though it works under the supervision of the Ministry of Defence,
is an independent body and the orders of the Central Government are not ipso
WP(C) No. 1619/2023 Page 4 of 5

facto applicable to the employees of the Sainik Schools, unless the same are
adopted. Therefore, the Office Memoranda issued by the Government of India
from time to time revising the pension of pre-2006 pensioners, having not been
adopted by the Sainik Schools Society, are not applicable to these Schools.
12. I am afraid, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is
without any merit. It is so because the Sainik Schools Society has, while
th
adopting 6 Central Pay Commission in favour of its employees in terms of
rd
communication dated 23 April 2009(Annexure R/III to the reply), specifically
provided that it shall be on the same pattern as admissible to the Central
Government employees. Therefore, any Office Memorandum or instruction,
which is issued by the Government of India bearing reference to
th
implementation of 6 CPC becomes automatically applicable to the
employees/pensioners of the Sainik Schools.
13. So far as the second grievance of the petitioner is concerned, the respondents
have clearly stated in their response that the same has already been addressed
by them by giving the benefit of full pension to the petitioner.
14. For all what has been said, analysed and discussed above, I do not find any
merit in the present petition. The same is, accordingly, dismissed.

(SANJAY DHAR)
JUDGE

Jammu
30.10.2026
Rakesh PS
Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No
Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No
WP(C) No. 1619/2023 Page 5 of 5