Pension revision was not adjudicated while entitlement to suspension-period increments remained undecided.

The applicant retired as Storekeeper Grade-II on 31 December 2003, with a recorded last pay of ₹3,950 and an initial pension of ₹1,975 per month

His pension was revised to ₹11,900 per month from 1 January 2016 under the 7th CPC, using the applicable concordance table

He claimed that annual increments had not been added to his pay between 1996 and retirement, and sought revised pension and related arrears.

His representations dated 8 May 2017 and 28 August 2018 were not answered

The respondents referred to criminal proceedings, a show-cause notice under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, and the applicant’s entitlement to provisional pension; they also stated that increments during suspension were governed by FR 54-B

Whether the applicant’s pension had been correctly revised under the 6th and 7th CPC, and whether he had established entitlement to further pension arrears

Whether the applicant’s claim for annual increments during suspension, and the resulting effect on his pension, required determination by the respondents under FR 54-B

The Tribunal considered FR 54-B, which governs pay and allowances following reinstatement after suspension, and Rules 9 and 69 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, which the respondents invoked in relation to pension proceedings and provisional pension

It also considered the 6th and 7th CPC pension-revision arrangements, including the relevant concordance table: on the recorded last pay of ₹3,950, the Tribunal found that the corresponding pension calculation was ₹4,625 from 1 January 2006 and ₹11,900 from 1 January 2016.

No judicial precedent was relied upon.

The Tribunal held that, because the applicant had retired in 2003, his pay did not require fixation as of 1 January 2006; rather, his last pay had to be converted for the purpose of revising pension.

On the material before it, the Tribunal found the 2016 pension calculation consistent with the applicable concordance table and noted that the applicant had not shown that he was denied the pension calculated from 1 January 2006.

However, the record did not disclose a decision on his representations alleging non-grant of increments, the outcome of the UPSC advice following the show-cause notice, or a determination of his claim under FR 54-B.

The Tribunal therefore did not finally determine entitlement to increments or any consequential pension revision.

It granted the applicant liberty to approach the respondents for annual increments under FR 54-B and for revision of pension from 1 January 2006; if the respondents decide in his favour on the increments claim, the increments are to be accorded

No order as to costs; pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of