Retired Excise Superintendent’s Widow May Get Pay-Pension Arrears If Husband Qualifies, With Upgrade Notional From 1996 And Actual From 2004

The application, brought by the spouse of late Sh. Kiran Kumar, challenged the Ministry of Finance order dated 21 April 2004 and subsequent communications insofar as they denied the upgraded pay scales to Inspectors and Superintendents notionally from 1 January 1996.

Kiran Kumar had been promoted as Inspector in 1989, later promoted as Superintendent, and retired in 2016.

The respondents stated that the Department of Expenditure had not agreed to extending the upgraded scales from 1 January 1996.

The Tribunal noted that it had already decided the same issue in O.A. No. 207/2022 and that the decision had been upheld by the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

Whether the late employee’s claim to the upgraded pay scales from 1 January 1996 should be considered in light of the Tribunal’s prior decision in O.A. No. 207/2022.

Whether, if found similarly situated to the applicants in that prior decision, his spouse was entitled to the same consequential relief.

The application was brought under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

The Tribunal applied its decision in O.A. No. 207/2022, which held that the upgraded pay scales under the Office Memorandum dated 21 April 2004 were to be given notionally from 1 January 1996 and actually from 21 April 2004, with consequential pay and pension fixation and arrears.

The Tribunal also noted that this ruling had been upheld by the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

Rather than independently re-examining the pay-scale dispute, the Tribunal relied on its prior decision addressing the same issue.

That decision granted notional benefit from 1 January 1996, actual benefit from 21 April 2004, and consequential fixation of pay and pension with arrears.

Because the earlier ruling had been upheld by the High Court, the Tribunal directed the respondents to determine whether Kiran Kumar was similarly situated and, if so, extend the same relief to his spouse.

If he was, his wife was to receive the relief set out in that decision within three months of receipt of the order.

No order as to costs was made.