K C BAJAJ Vs. UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This batch of writ petitions (15 in numbers) have been filed by doctors, who retired from services prior to 01.01.1996 and who are 272 in numbers; majority of them having worked with Railways, few in the Directorate of Health Services, Delhi, one as Professor of Maulana Azad Medical College and the other one as Director General, Employees State Insurance Corporation. The writ petition arises out of a judgment delivered by the Full Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal.) in OA No. 1927/2006 along with 14 other connected OAs dated 12.09.2008 whereby the Full Bench dismissed the O.A.s seeking inclusion of Non Practicing Allowance (for short NPA.) as part of minimum pay as on 01.01.1996 for calculation of pension payable to them in terms of 5th Central Pay Commission recommendations directing that those who retired prior to 01.01.1996 will be treated alike regarding calculation of their pension as on 01.01.1996 by allowing the same fitment weightage as may be allowed to the serving employees. However, consolidated pension will not be less than 50% of the minimum revised scale of pay of the post held by the pensioner at the time of retirement. These recommendations were accepted by the Government and notification dated 17.12.1998 to this effect was issued.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioners that while doctors who retired after 01.01.1996, got pension based upon the calculation of 50% of their basic pay and also by inclusion of 50% of NPA which is calculated at the rate of 25% of the basic pay, the petitioners who are retirees prior to 01.01.1996 does not get the benefit of inclusion of 50% of NPA as per the eligibility of the retirees who retire after 01.01.1996. This creates a discrimination qua them for the purpose of calculating the pension even though, the Government of India as per recommendations of the 5th Pay Commission wanted equivalence of pension to the extent of 50% of the minimum of the revised scale of pay w.e.f. 01.01.1996 even for the petitioners who form batch of retirees prior to 01.01.1996.

(3.) It has been submitted that the petitioners are covered by the decision given by a Division Bench of this Court in Dr.K.C. Garg & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. C.W.P. 7322/2001 and connected cases decided on 18.05.2002 by a Division Bench of Jabalpur High Court in Union of India & Ors. Vs. Dr.G.D.Hoonka, Retd. & Anr., W.P.(C)2539/2003 decided on 07.12.2004. It has also been submitted that the SLP filed against the judgment of both the cases stand dismissed as withdrawn and therefore the decision given in those cases has attained finality. It is further submitted that the Government of India has even implemented the decision in Dr.Garg.s Case and Hoonka.s Case and, therefore, by not granting a similar benefit to the petitioners they are violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In these cases benefit of NPA (as applicable on 01.01.1996) has been considered as inclusive of pay for the purpose of calculation of pension. It has been submitted that the j,udgment given in Col.B.J. Akkara (Retd.) Vs. Government of India & Ors. (2006) 11 SCC 709 relied upon by the Tribunal while deciding the matters against the petitioners, is not applicable to the petitioners in the peculiar facts as is sought to be addressed before us.