Pre-2006 pensioners already receiving above the 50% minimum are not entitled to further revision.

The applicant, a retired TGT (Hindi), superannuated from KVS on 30 April 2004.

Because he had completed less than 33 years of qualifying service, his original pension was calculated pro rata.

He contended that the Office Memorandum (OM) dated 6 April 2016 required revision of his pension from 1 January 2006 without pro-rata reduction and sought arrears with interest.

KVS stated that his pension had been revised to Rs. 8,562 per month from 1 January 2006, exceeding the applicable minimum of Rs. 7,215, and relied on its pension details and arrears statement.

The applicant challenged the method of calculation in written submissions.

Whether the applicant’s revised pension from 1 January 2006 was required to be recalculated under the OM dated 6 April 2016 without pro-rata reduction for qualifying service below 33 years

Whether the applicant established that the pension fixed by KVS was below the minimum guaranteed under the applicable OMs or was otherwise incorrectly calculated

The OM dated 1 September 2008 provided that, with effect from 1 January 2006, a pre-2006 pensioner’s revised pension could not be lower than 50% of the minimum of the pay in the applicable Pay Band plus grade pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner retired.

The OM dated 6 April 2016 clarified that this minimum was to apply without pro-rata reduction, even where the pensioner had less than 33 years of qualifying service.

For the applicant’s pre-revised scale of Rs. 5,500–9,000, the corresponding pay band and grade pay produced a minimum pension floor of Rs. 7,215.

The Tribunal did not rely on any cited judicial precedent or statute.

The Tribunal accepted that the applicant retired before 1 January 2006 with less than 33 years of qualifying service and that the 2016 OM removed pro-rata reduction when applying the guaranteed minimum pension floor.

It found, however, that the applicant’s revised pension of Rs. 8,562 exceeded the applicable floor of Rs. 7,215.

The applicant had not shown from the pension records that his revised pension remained subject to a pro-rata reduction, nor had he challenged the fixation reflected in the respondents’ due-and-drawn statement.

The Tribunal also declined to entertain the alternative calculation method advanced in written submissions, observing that it raised a new case not pleaded in the application.

It dismissed the OA, with no order as to costs.