C GANESAN vs M/o Railways

1 OA 358/2019
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAI BENCH

OA/310/00358/2019

th
Dated, the 12 day of August, Two Thousand Twenty Six

CORAM :

HON’BLE MR.M.SWAMINATHAN, MEMBER (J)
&
HON’BLE MR.M.L.SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER (A)

C.Ganesan,
S/o.P.Chennakesavalu,
4/62, IV Main Road,
Jawahar Nagar,
Chennai 600 082 … Applicant

By Advocate .. M/s.S.Kala


Vs.


1. The Union of India
Rep. by the Executive Director PG,
Railway Board, Room No.507A, Rail Bhavan,
Raisina Road, New Delhi - 110 001.

2.The Principal Financial Advisor
Integral coach factory, Perambur,
Chennai-600038.

3. The Senior Assistant Finance Advisor,
(Establishment) Integral coach factory,
Perambur, Chennai-600038 … Respondents


By Advocate .. Mr.Su.Srinivasan

2 OA 358/2019
ORDER

(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr.M.L.SRIVASTAVA, Member(A))

The applicant has filed the present OA under Section 19 of the
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following relief:
"a) To call for and set aside the impugned PPO order in Annexure No.A8 revision of
pension at Rs.4600 grade pay and Annexure No.A9 and Annexure A10 rejecting the
request of the applicant;

b) grant pension to the applicant in Rs.5400 Grade Pay and 7500-12000 Scale of
Pay with effect from 01-01-2006 on the basis of RBE No. 128/2008 dated
23.09.2008 (Annexure No.A2) on par with his Juniors who retired after 2006, in the
Assistant accounts officer (AAO) cadre and revise the pension and

c) Consequently direct the Respondent 2 to re-fix the pension of the Applicants by
stepping up the grade pay and Scale of Pay on the basis of RS(RP) Rules 2008 with
all consequential benefits including arrears of pay and corresponding allowances
with simple interest:

d) Issue such further and other appropriate orders or directions as this Hon'ble
Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case by
suitably molding the relief and award costs and thus render justice."


2. The brief facts of the case as submitted by the applicant are as follows:
2.1 The Applicant was appointed as Accounts Clerk Grade II (110-180) on
06.05.1961. Thereafter he was promoted as Clerk Grade I (130-300) in the year
1968 after passing Departmental Examination Appendix II A, and promoted as
Junior Accountant (500-900) (Section Officer at present) from 07.08.1963 on
passing Appendix III-A Examination conducted by the 1st Respondent on all India
basis held in February 1970. This examination is equivalent to Subordinate
Accounts Service (for short 'SAS') of Audit Department under C&AG. Passing this
Examination is compulsory for promotion as Section Officer (Accounts) and finally
promoted as Assistant Accounts Officer (2375-3750) a Gazette rank post borne
in Group B from September 1993 against regular vacancy and continued in the
same post till retirement on 30.06.1995. He retired from service on attaining
superannuation after completing 34 years of blemish less service. His Last drawn
pay was Rs.3300 in the scale of Rs.2375-3500.
2.2 The grievance of the applicant is that though Government of India, Ministry

3 OA 358/2019
of Personnel, P.G and Pensions, Department of Pension & Pensioners’ Welfare OM
in F.No.38/37/2016-P&PW(A) dated 6th July, 2017 which prepared the
concordance table specifically stated in Para 4 that in case of any inconsistency
the pension of pre 2016 pensioner has to be fixed in accordance with the rules/
instruction applicable, ignoring this the respondents mechanically stated that the
revision was in accordance with the concordance table. The respondents
mechanically followed the 4th CPC pay of 2375-75 - 3200 - 100 3500 125 - 3750
corresponding 5th CPC was 7450 in 6th CPC 9300 225 11500 in PB-2 and 34800
in Grade Pay 4600. But actually, the applicant is eligible for Rs.5400 in PB-2
according to the RSRP Rules as amended in RBE.No.128 of 2008 dated
23.09.2008. This mandatory rule in which the Grade pay for the post of AAO was
fixed at Rs.5400 for the corresponding pre revised 5th CPC scale of Rs. 7500 -
12000. The applicant has submitted a table wherein the pension drawn and what
is due has been depicted. Learned counsel for the applicant has prayed that on
the basis of the amendment to the RSRP Rules, the other similar categories were
given correct pension by calculating the Grade Pay at Rs.5400 only and the
applicant is left out. The respondents vide impugned orders dated 10.10.2018
and 04.01.2019 have rejected the representations dated 05.09.2018 &
12.10.2018 submitted by the applicant.
3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents brought to the notice of this
court that the applicant had retired from service as Asst. Accounts Officer on
Superannuation w.e.f. 30/06/1995. At the time of his retirement the employee
was in the IVth Pay Commission pay scale of Rs.2375-3500. Subsequently, the
Government of India had granted revised pay scales w.e.f. 01/01/1996,
01/01/2006 and 01/01/2016 consequent on the recommendations of the Vth,
VIth and VIIth Pay Commissions respectively. The prayer of the applicant is that
he should be given the equivalent scale of pay in the subsequent Vth, VIth and
VIIth Pay Commissions with reference to the Post held by him at the time of his

4 OA 358/2019
retirement in IV Pay Commission. As per the Ministry of Personnel, PG and
Pensions O.M. no: F.No.38/37/2016-P&PW(A) dt 6th July 2017 circulated through
Railway Board's letter No: 2016/F(E)III/1(1)/7 dt. 11/07/2017, the revision of
pension/family pension was made w.e.f. 01/01/2016 with reference to the scale
of pay held by him at the time of his retirement during IVth Pay commission and
equated in the subsequent Pay Commissions and not based on the post held at
the time of retirement. Accordingly, while implementing the VII Pay commission’s
recommendations with regard to revision of pension/family pension of pre-2016
pensioners/family pensioners, the Ministry of Personnel, P.G, and Pensions had
issued concordance tables under cover of their OM.No:F.No.38/37/2016-P&PW(A)
dt 6th July 2017 containing the scale of pay at the time of IVth Pay Commission
and equivalent scale of pay in the successive Pay Commissions upto VIIth Pay
Commission and based on which the revisions for pension/family pension was
done.
3.1 The respondents further submitted that there is no Grade pay of Rs.4600/-
for the posts in Accounts Department. Further as per the OM of the Ministry of
Personnel, PG & Pension dt 6th July 2017 pertaining to revision pre-2016 of
pension/family pension pensioners/family pensioners, the applicant has to be
placed in Table 27 with reference to the Scale of pay of the applicant drawn by
him at the time of his retirement which is rightly done in this case.
4. Heard the rival arguments of both parties, perused the material placed on
record and scrutinized the whole conspectus of the case.
5. The fulcrum of the case revolves around the basic submission of the
applicant that in the successive Pay Commission, the revision of pension has to
be as per the post held by the applicant at the time of retirement. The relevant
para 4 of Ministry of Personnel, P.G and Pensions, Department of Pension &
Pensioners’ Welfare OM in F.No.38/37/2016-P&PW(A) dated 12th May, 2017 is
extracted as under:

5 OA 358/2019
“It has been decided that the revised pension/family pension w.e.f. 01.01.2016 in
respect of all Central civil pensioners/family pensioners, including CAPF's, who
retired/died prior to 01.01.2016, may be revised by notionally fixing their pay in the pay
matrix recommended by the ih CPC in the level corresponding to the pay in the pay
scale/pay band and grade pay at which they retired/died. This will be done by notional
pay fixation under each intervening Pay Commission based on the Formula for revision
of pay. While fixing pay on notional basis, the pay fixation formulae approved by the
Government and other relevant instructions on the subject in force at the relevant time
shall be strictly followed. 50% of the notional pay as on 01.01.2016 shall be the revised
pension and 30% of this notional pay shall be the revised family pension w.e.f. 1.1.2016
as per the first Formulation.“

6. Subsequently, the Department of Pension & Pensioners’ Welfare OM in
F.No.38/37/2016-P&PW(A) dated 6th July, 2017 regarding, “Revision of pension
of pre-2016 pensioners / family pensioners in implementation of Government's
decision on the recommendations of the 7th Central Pay Commission
Concordance tables“, it has been further clarified that, “Based on the fitment
tables provided by the Department of Expenditure, concordance tables for fixation
of notional pay and pension / family pension of employees who retired/died in
various grades during the 4th, 5th and 6th Pay Commission periods have been
prepared and the same are enclosed herewith. In the case of those employees
who retired/died before 01.01.1986, these concordance tables may be used
based on their notional pay as on 01.01.1986, which was fixed in accordance with
this Department's OM No. 45/86/97-P&PW(D)(iii) dated 10.02.1998“.
7. Further as submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that there
was no concept of Grade pay existed at the time of the applicant's retirement.
The concept of Grade pay was introduced based on the VIth Pay Commission
recommendations w.e.f.01/01/2006, whereas the applicant had retired from
service during the IVth Pay Commission. Therefore, the applicant had not actually
received the Grade pay of Rs.5400/-. The Ministry of Personnel, PG and Pension,
in their Pre-2016 pension/family pension revision orders have given the Scales of
pay from IVth Pay Commission equated to the subsequent pay commissions till
VII pay Commission in order to fix the pension of the retired pensioners/family
pensioners. Accordingly, as the applicant had retired from the scale of pay of

6 OA 358/2019
Rs.2375-3500/- in 30/06/1995 and the concordance table for the scale which is
27 rightly applied in this case.
8. In the result, as demonstrated by the learned counsel for the respondents,
the pension of the applicant was fixed taking into account the last basic pay drawn
by the applicant and fixing it accordingly in the successive Pay Commissions. This
is irrespective of the post held by the applicant and solely based on the last pay
drawn.
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.3174 of 2006 filed by
K.S.Krishnaswamy etc. Vs. Union of India & Anr, along with Civil Appeals
Nos.3173, 3188, 3189 & 3190 of 2006, has categorically decided the issue that
the pre-1996 pensioners are not eligible for revision of pension with reference to
the higher replacement scale as applicable to those who are in service as on
th
01.01.1996. Hence, t he recommendation of the 6 CPC for fixation of scale of
pay is applicable to those employed as on 01.01.2006 and not to the pensioners
who are retired prior to 01.01.2006.
10. Similar issue was dealt with by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Union of India Vs. R.Sethumadhavan (2018) 15 SCC 48 wherein the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has held as under:
“14. We have heard learned counsel for parties and find that the Tribunal was right in
relying upon the judgment and order passed by this Court in Krishnaswamy . In this
decision, the very question that arose for consideration before the Tribunal and the High
Court was dealt with, though with reference to some other posts of the Government of
India. The question formulated by this Court in Krishnaswamy related to the scale of pay
th
recommended by the 5 Central Pay Commission and the acceptance of the
recommendations by the Government of India by a policy decision dated
th th
30 September, 1997 and the Office Memorandum dated 17 December, 1998 clarified
th
by the Office Memorandum dated 11 May, 2001. The basic question that arose for
th
consideration was whether the Office Memorandum dated 11 May, 2001 overrides the
th
Office Memorandum dated 17 December, 1998 clarifying the policy resolution of the
th
Government of India dated 30 September, 1997.
15. While dealing with this question, this Court held in paragraphs 17 and 27 of the

Report as follows:
“17. The main thrust of the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants is
that the OM dated 11-5-2001 overrides the original OM dated 17-12-1998 and
creates two classes of pensioners. We are unable to accept this contention. As
noticed above, the recommendations of the Fifth Pay Commission were accepted
to the extent of policy resolution dated 30-9-1997. The aforesaid Policy Resolution
was further clarified by issuing instructions in OM dated 17-12-1998, which were

7 OA 358/2019
clarified by another executive instructions in OM dated 11-5-2001. It is well-settled
principle of law that recommendations of the Pay Commission are subject to the
acceptance/rejection with modifications of the appropriate Government. It is also
well-settled principle of law that a policy decision of the Government can be
reviewed/altered/modified by executive instructions. It is in these circumstances
that a policy decision cannot be challenged on the ground of estoppel. In the
present case, the recommendations of the Fifth Pay Commission were accepted by
a Policy Resolution dated 30-9-1997 that the ceiling on the amount of pension will
be 50% of the highest pay in the Government. The pension of all pre-1-1-1996
retirees including pre-1986 retirees shall be consolidated as on 1-1-1996, but the
consolidated pension shall not be brought on to the level of 50% of the minimum
of the revised pay of the post held by the pensioner at the time of retirement. The
subsequent OM dated 17-12-1998 clarified the Policy Resolution dated 30-9-1997
by executive instructions in OM dated 17-12-1998 and further clarified in the form
of OM dated 11-5-2001 clarifying the contents of Policy Resolution of the
Government dated 30-9-1997. They are both complementary to each other. Both
clarify the government Policy Resolution dated 30-9-1997. The appellants are not
aggrieved by the executive instructions in OM dated 17-12-1998. In our view,
therefore, the contention of the appellant that the OM dated 11-5-2001 overrides
the original OM dated 17-12-1998, thereby creating two classes of pensioners is
absolutely ill-founded and untenable.
27 . For the reasons aforestated, the view taken by the Madras High Court that the
clarificatory executive instructions in OM dated 11-5-2001 are an integral part of
the OM dated 17-12-1998 clarifying the policy resolution of the Government dated
30-9-1997 and do not override the original OM dated 17-12-1998 is correct law and
it is, accordingly, affirmed. The view taken by the Delhi High Court that OM dated
11-5-2001 overrides the original OM dated 17-12-1998 and creates two classes of

pensioners does not lay down the correct law and is, hereby, set aside.”
16. Unfortunately, the High Court has not even referred to this judgment while taking a
decision in favour of the respondent. Since the issue is squarely covered by the decision
of this Court in Krishnaswamy , the appeal must be allowed.
17. Yet another error made by the High Court is in assuming that the post of Train
Examiner was re-designated as Junior Engineer Grade-II. There is nothing on record to
suggest the re-designation. In fact the conclusion of re-designation is the sole basis on
which the writ petition was allowed by the High Court and as mentioned above, we do
not find any material on record to suggest the re-designation. Consequently, the entire
basis of the decision of the High Court is erroneous, apart from the fact that the High
Court did not advert to the decision of this Court in Krishnaswamy on the subject.
18. In the circumstances, we have no option but to set aside the impugned judgment
and order of the Madras High Court and we do so accordingly. The appeal is allowed.
19. In case any payments have been made to the respondent, there will be no recovery
of these amounts.”

11. Taking into account the foregoing judicial pronouncements, it is made amply
clear that the pension of all pensioners irrespective of their date of retirement
shall not be less than 50% of the minimum of the corresponding scale as on,
1.1.96 of the scale of pay held by the pensioner at the time of retirement/death
while in service and is dissociated with the post held at the time of retirement.
Thus, the pension so arrived at in the case of the applicant is as per the Ministry

8 OA 358/2019
of Personnel, P.G, and Pensions OM.No:F.No.38/37/2016-P&PW(A) dated 6th July
2017. The applicant relying on the provisions as made for in Para 2 & 4 of the OM
dated 06.07.2026 which provides that, “in case of any inconsistency in the
concordance tables vis-a-vis the relevant rules/instructions, the notional pay and
pension/family pension of pre-2016 pensioners/family pensioners may be fixed
in accordance with the rules/instructions applicable for fixation of pay in the
intervening Pay Commission periods“. However, it has been made amply clear
that the pension fixation in the case of the applicant in successive Pay
Commissions as per concordance table No.27 is rightly done as per the settled
law that pension has to be fixed according to the scale of pay and not according
to the post held at the time of retirement. Thus, taking recourse of the relevant
provision under Para 4 as above, judicial intervention is not warranted in the
instant case.
12. I n the result, the relief asked for in the instant OA cannot be granted. This
Tribunal is of the considered view that the applicant has failed to make out a case
and the OA is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the OA is dismissed. No order
as to costs.


(M.L.SRIVASTAVA) (M.SWAMINATHAN)
MEMBER(A) MEMBER (J)

MT 12.08.2026
Digitally signed by THANGAM M
Date: 2026.09.02 10:08:35
+05'30'
THANGAM M