CHAMAN LAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There is no dispute about the following facts relating to the service profile of the petitioner herein and fixation of his pension on his retirement. The petitioner was working as Office Superintendent in the Directorate of Education, Delhi Administration in the pay scale of Rs.550-900, which was revised by the Third Pay Commission to Rs.1640-2900 w.e.f. 1.1.1986. The petitioner superannuated on 28.2.1986. His pension was fixed at Rs.1156/- on the basis of last pay drawn at Rs.2540/- per month and on the basis of calculation of 10 months average emoluments. Later on his pension was consolidated at Rs.3496/- in terms of the OM dated 27.10.1997 w.e.f. 1.1.1996. Thereafter, the Government issued OM dated 10.2.1998, which provides for notional fixation of pension of Pre-1986 retirees at 50% of the notional pay as determined in the 1986 scale of pay, appropriate to each case. However, those persons who had retired between 1.1.1986 and 30.9.1986, the pension has been fixed at the rate of 50% of 10 months' average emoluments. Application of this formula has resulted in lower pension for those who retired between 1.1.1986 and 30.9.1986 in comparison to those who retired prior to 1986 from the same post. Since the petitioner had retired on 28.2.1986, he fell into this category where his pension calculated on the basis of the said average formula was lower than those who retired prior to 1.1.1986. He accordingly filed OA before the Tribunal in the year 2002 challenging the OM dated 10.2.1998 on the ground that the same was discriminatory as there could not be any basis of fixing two different yardsticks for calculation of the pension-one for those who retired prior to 1.1.1986 and other for those who retired between 1.1.1986 and 30.9.1986. The petitioner, thus, wanted similar benefit as given to those who retired prior to 1.1.1986. He demonstrated the effect of differential treatment by giving the following example:-

(2.) He also pointed out that this anomaly was removed while implementing the recommendation of 5th Pay Commission with effect from 1.1.1996. There also those who retired between 1.1.1996 to 30.9.1996 were in the same position as the petitioner. However, subsequently vide order dated 18.10.1999 the Government had granted special benefit/concession to the retirees of 1.1.1996 to 30.9.1996, though it was not based on any recommendation of the 5th Pay Commission. It would be useful to reproduce the following extracts from the judgment of the Tribunal:-

(3.) The learned Tribunal did not accept the plea of the petitioner having regard to the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of W. B. and another v. W.B. Govt. Pensioners' Associatons and others, (2002) 2 SCC 179.