Pension revision is based on the pay scale held at retirement, not the post’s subsequent upgraded scale.

The applicant, appointed in the Railway Accounts Department in 1961, was promoted through the departmental accounting examinations and ultimately served as an Assistant Accounts Officer (AAO), a Group ‘B’ gazetted post.

He retired on superannuation on 30 June 1995, while drawing pay in the IV Central Pay Commission scale of Rs. 2,375–3,500.

Following successive Pay Commission revisions, his pension was revised with reference to the applicable pay-scale concordance table, resulting in fixation corresponding to Grade Pay of Rs. 4,600.

The applicant contended that, under Railway Board’s RBE No. 128/2008 dated 23 September 2008, the AAO post corresponded to the pre-revised scale of Rs. 7,500–12,000 and Grade Pay of Rs. 5,400, and sought parity with juniors who retired after 2006.

His representations were rejected by orders dated 10 October 2018 and 4 January 2019, leading to the present OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

1. Whether the applicant’s pension, as a pre-1996 retiree, was required to be revised with reference to the post of Assistant Accounts Officer held at retirement and the subsequent Grade Pay of Rs. 5,400, rather than with reference to the IV Pay Commission scale actually drawn by him.

2. Whether RBE No. 128/2008 and the provisions concerning notional pay fixation under the Department of Pension & Pensioners’ Welfare OMs dated 12 May 2017 and 6 July 2017 entitled the applicant to pensionary parity with employees who remained in service after 1 January 2006.

3. Whether the respondents’ reliance on Concordance Table No. 27 for revising the applicant’s pension was legally sustainable.

The Tribunal applied Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 as the jurisdictional basis for the OA.

The Department of Pension & Pensioners’ Welfare OM dated 12 May 2017 provided that the revised pension of pre-2016 pensioners would be determined by notionally fixing pay in the successive Pay Commission structures with reference to the pay-scale/pay band and Grade Pay at which the employee retired, and that 50% of the notional pay as on 1 January 2016 would constitute revised pension.

The OM dated 6 July 2017 introduced concordance tables for determining notional pay and pension of pre-2016 pensioners, based on the scale of pay held at retirement.

The Tribunal relied on K.S. Krishnaswamy v. Union of India and Union of India v. R. Sethumadhavan, (2018) 15 SCC 48, for the principle that pre-1996 retirees cannot claim pension revision by reference to a higher replacement scale applicable to employees in service on the relevant Pay Commission date; pension revision is linked to the scale of pay held at retirement, not merely the post or later scale applicable to serving employees.

The Tribunal held that the applicant retired in 1995 under the IV Pay Commission and had not actually received any Grade Pay, as the Grade Pay system was introduced only from 1 January 2006.

Consequently, his pension had to be notionally revised through the successive Pay Commission stages by reference to the scale of pay actually drawn at retirement, rather than by treating the post of AAO as automatically corresponding to the later Grade Pay of Rs. 5,400.

The respondents had correctly applied Concordance Table No. 27 to the applicant’s IV Pay Commission scale.

Applying Krishnaswamy and Sethumadhavan, the Tribunal rejected the argument that the applicant was entitled to the higher replacement scale applicable to serving employees or juniors who retired after 2006.

It further found no inconsistency between the concordance-table method and the applicable pension revision instructions warranting judicial interference.

It held that his pension was correctly revised on the basis of the IV Pay Commission scale held at the time of retirement and the corresponding concordance table, and that he was not entitled to fixation based on Grade Pay of Rs. 5,400 or parity with post-2006 retirees.

The OA was accordingly dismissed, and no order as to costs was made.