Pension of pre-2006 retirees must equal 50% of minimum pay in pay band plus grade pay.

The applicant, Suresh Prasad Singh, retired as a Higher Selection Grade–I (HSG-I) Head Sorting Assistant on 30.11.2002, with a last drawn pay of Rs. 7700/- in the 5th Central Pay Commission (CPC) pay scale of Rs. 6500–200–10500/-.

His pension was initially fixed at Rs. 3648/-.

Under the 6th CPC, effective from 01.01.2006, his pension was revised to Rs. 8411/- and subsequently to Rs. 24,500/- under the 7th CPC, effective from 01.01.2016.

The applicant contended that the 5th CPC pay scale of Rs. 6500–10500/- was revised to Rs. 7450–11500/- under the 6th CPC, corresponding to Pay Band-2 of Rs. 9300–34800/- with Grade Pay of Rs. 4600/-.

He relied on an Office Memorandum (OM) dated 28.01.2013, read with a clarification dated 30.07.2015, which specified a minimum pension of Rs. 9230/- for the revised pay scale of Rs. 7450–11500/-, effective from 01.01.2006.

The applicant's representations for fixation of his pension at Rs. 9230/- from 01.01.2006 were rejected by the respondents via communication dated 11.07.2018, stating he was not entitled to the benefit.

The respondents argued that the pay scale of Rs. 6500–10500/- was placed directly into Pay Band–2 with Grade Pay of Rs. 4600/- and not revised to Rs. 7450–11500/-.

They further argued that the minimum pension calculated as per DoP&PW OM dated 28.01.2013 for his scale was Rs. 8345/-, which was lower than his existing revised pension of Rs. 8411/-.

Whether the applicant, a pre-2006 retiree, is entitled to have his pension fixed at Rs. 9230/- with effect from 01.01.2006, based on the Office Memoranda dated 28.01.2013 and 30.07.2015?

Whether the communication dated 11.07.2018, rejecting the applicant's claim for revised pension, was based on a proper interpretation of the relevant Office Memoranda?

Office Memorandum F. No. 38/37/08-P&PW(A) dated 28.01.2013, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Pension and Pensioners’ Welfare.

Clarification dated 30.07.2015, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Pension and Pensioners’ Welfare.

The revised pension shall not be lower than 50% of the sum of the minimum of the pay in the pay band and the grade pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner retired, effective from 01.01.2006.

Pensioners forming a homogeneous class cannot be subjected to arbitrary discrimination, as reinforced by the decision in J.D. Gupta (Retd.) vs. Chief Secretary, Government of NCT of Delhi & Others.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant retired as HSG-I in the pre-revised pay scale of Rs. 6500–200–10500/-, which was later placed in Pay Band-2 with Grade Pay of Rs. 4600/-.

The core dispute revolved around the interpretation of the DoP&PW OMs dated 28.01.2013 and 30.07.2015, which aimed to ensure parity between pre-2006 and post-2006 retirees.

The Tribunal found that the respondents' rejection of the applicant's claim via communication dated 11.07.2018 was based on a narrow interpretation of these instructions, failing to consider their underlying objective of preventing disparity in pension fixation.

The Tribunal emphasized that pension is a valuable right, and arbitrary discrimination between homogeneous classes of pensioners, such as pre- and post-2006 retirees, is impermissible.

By disregarding the purposive interpretation of the OMs, the respondents' action defeated the scheme's purpose and denied the applicant legitimate benefits, thus being legally unsustainable.

The reliance on J.D. Gupta (Retd.) reinforced the principle against artificial distinctions leading to pension disparity.

It quashed and set aside the impugned communication dated 11.07.2018 issued by the office of the Director of Accounts (Postal), Patna.

The respondents were directed to re-examine and re-fix the applicant's pension in light of the Office Memoranda dated 28.01.2013 and 30.07.2015, and to grant him the minimum pension of Rs. 9230/- with effect from 01.01.2006, if found admissible.

The respondents were further directed to revise the applicant's pension accordingly and pay all consequential arrears arising from this revision within three months from the receipt of the order.