General allegations of incorrect pension fixation fail absent specific evidence of procedural or mathematical errors.

The applicant is the widow of Late Ch. Mohan Rao, a Travelling Ticket Examiner (TTE) who was removed from service on 26.06.1997 for unauthorized absence

Upon challenge in O.A. No. 686 of 1997, the Tribunal modified the punishment to "Compulsory Retirement," a decision upheld by the Orissa High Court in 2003

Following Rao's death, the applicant was issued a Pension Payment Order (PPO).

The applicant alleged that her husband’s pension was erroneously fixed based on a pre-revised pay scale of Rs. 1200-2040 and a last pay drawn of Rs. 1440/-, rather than the revised 5th Central Pay Commission (CPC) scales effective from 01.01.1996

Although a previous O.A. (439/2007) directed the applicant to file a representation, the respondents closed the matter in 2010 claiming no representation was received

The applicant filed the present O.A. in 2019 seeking a revision of family pension

1. Whether the O.A. is barred by the law of limitation due to the nine-year delay since the closure of the previous proceedings in 2010

2. Whether the respondents committed an error in the calculation and fixation of the late employee's pay and subsequent pension/family pension under the 5th CPC recommendations

The Tribunal applied the principles of the 5th Central Pay Commission (CPC) pay scales as adopted by the Railways

Railway Board Letter No. F(E)III/07/PN1/22 dated 05.11.1997 and Establishment Serial No. 158/97 dated 12.11.1997 (Para-10), which prescribe the methodology for calculating pension based on average emoluments and qualifying service at the time of retirement

The Tribunal first addressed the issue of delay; given the applicant’s status as a 72-year-old widow and the nature of the claim (pension), it condoned the limitation period

On the merits, the Tribunal found that the applicant’s claim was "evasive and general," failing to provide documentary evidence or pinpoint exactly how the pay fixation was incorrect

In contrast, the respondents provided detailed calculations demonstrating that the pension was fixed at Rs. 1,724/- with Dearness Relief, totaling Rs. 1,951/- w.e.f. 26.06.1997, based on a qualifying service of 31 years and 6 months

The Tribunal noted that the respondents had applied the 5th CPC scales to calculate both the pension and the Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity (DCRG) of Rs. 44,680/- paid in 2004

Since the applicant could not specifically dispute these statutory calculations, the Tribunal found no grounds to doubt the respondents' actions

It concluded that the respondents had correctly fixed the pay and pension in accordance with the 5th CPC scales and relevant Railway Board rules

The prayer for revision of family pension was denied, and all pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of