Pensionary benefits and arrears must align with pay re-fixation specified in official corrigendum PPOs.

The applicant, a retired Refrigeration Mechanic from the Military Engineer Services, sought the release of revised pension and terminal benefits.

In the original proceeding (O.A. 385/2022), the Tribunal directed the respondents on March 6, 2023, to issue authorization for revised pensionary benefits.

The applicant claimed entitlement to a revised pension of ₹24,500, while the respondents paid ₹23,100.

A subsequent Miscellaneous Application (M.A. 525/2024) was closed on March 12, 2025, with the Tribunal observing it had not specifically adjudicated whether the due amount was ₹24,500 or ₹23,800.

The applicant filed the current Review Application (R.A.) contending that the Tribunal overlooked the respondents' prior undertaking to fix the pension at ₹24,500.

1. Whether there was an error apparent on the face of the record regarding the respondents' alleged undertaking to fix the pension at ₹24,500 per month.

2. Whether the applicant is entitled to a pension of ₹23,800 based on the revised pay fixation and Corrigendum Pension Payment Order (PPO) issued by the respondents.

The court applied the principles of pay and pension revision based on the Ministry of Defence (MOD) clarification dated August 4, 2023.

It also relied on the administrative finality of a Corrigendum PPO (Annexure MA-R5) and the Senior Accounts Officer’s (SPARSH) internal communication (No. Pay/Tech/6050/Pen/2024) regarding the re-fixation of pay and its corresponding impact on pension calculations.

The Tribunal conducted a "close scrutiny" of the records and found no evidence of a finding or undertaking by the Accounts Office to fix the pension specifically at ₹24,500.

Instead, documents such as Annexure MA-R4 and the Corrigendum PPO (Annexure MA-R5) explicitly stated that following the MOD clarification, the applicant’s last pay was fixed at ₹47,600.

Consequently, his pension was revised to ₹9,140 effective June 1, 2010, and subsequently to ₹23,800 effective January 1, 2016.

The Tribunal noted that despite these internal records and undertakings to the court to fix the pension at ₹23,800, the applicant was still being paid only ₹23,100, which was deemed unacceptable.

The court directed the respondents to fix the pension at this rate and ensure that all arrears of pay, pension, and other terminal benefits are paid to the applicant within 90 days from the date of receipt of the order.

No costs were awarded.