Entitlement to Full Pension Post-20 Years Service and Grant of Additional Increment Under SRO-222

The applicant, a retired Principal of a Government Degree College, was appointed as a Lecturer in 1978 and retired on 31.12.2006 after 28 years and 7 months of service

Following the 6th Pay Commission, a uniform increment date of July 1st was implemented. This created an anomaly for employees like the applicant whose increments were due between February and June 2006

While the Government issued SRO-222 (2012) to grant a one-time increment to rectify this, the Financial Advisor (Higher Education Dept.) issued a communication on 07.03.2013 stating that SRO-222 would not apply to College teachers

Additionally, the applicant challenged the requirement of 33 years of qualifying service for the grant of full pension (50% of last pay), asserting entitlement based on revised norms and judicial precedents

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the benefit of one additional increment as per SRO-222 dated 10.07.2012

2. Whether the requirement of 33 years of qualifying service for full pension is legally sustainable and whether the applicant is entitled to 50% of his last pay as pension after 20 years of service

The court primarily applied SRO-222 of 2012, which modified Rule 10 of the Pay Revision Rules to grant a one-time increment to employees whose increments fell between February and June 2006

Regarding pension, the court relied on the Supreme Court judgment in SLP 36148/2013, which held that requiring 33 years of service for full pension is arbitrary

It further applied Office Memorandums dated 06.04.2016 and 12.04.2016, which clarified that pension should be de-linked from the 33-year requirement and fixed at 50% of the revised pay scale for those with at least 20 years of service

The Tribunal found that the respondents did not specifically deny the applicant’s entitlement to the additional increment under SRO-222; in fact, the department's internal correspondence acknowledged the claim as genuine

The court applied the principle that clear and unequivocal admissions by the state form a valid basis for relief

Regarding the pension claim, the Tribunal noted that the legal position is no longer res integra (settled) following the Supreme Court's intervention, which declared the 33-year service cap for full pension to be "bad in law"

Since the applicant rendered over 28 years of service—exceeding the revised 20-year threshold—the court determined that the denial of 50% pension was arbitrary and inconsistent with the principles of "One Rank One Pension"

The Tribunal quashed the communication dated 07.03.2013 and directed the respondents to grant the applicant one additional increment under SRO-222

The court further directed the respondents to release pension at 50% of the last notional pay/pay scale, irrespective of the 33-year service requirement, in parity with pre-2006 pensioners

The respondents were ordered to complete the implementation within six weeks