K.R GOVINDAN Vs. ADMINISTRATOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the Original Petitions agitate the very same cause; of inclusion of Special Pay in the Basic Pay and pay fixation to be granted on the implementation of Vth Central Pay Commission ("CPC" for short) w.e.f. 01.01.1996, for the purpose of determination of the last pay drawn for reckoning pension. All the individual petitioners are persons who retired from the service of Union Territory of Lakshadweep having been sent there on deputation from the mainland. They were entitled to Special Pay and Compensatory Allowance at varying rates during the period of the respective Pay Commission recommendations. The claim now raised for reckoning pension on the basis of the fixation as on 1.1.1996, is on the basis of inter parte judgment in which the very same cause was agitated and a decision rendered in favour of the identical petitioners.

(2.) The Tribunal, in the impugned order, noticed the inter parte decisions; but, directed the benefit only to those persons who retired anterior to the date from which Special Pay has been excluded from the term Basic Pay, ie, from 01.01.1996 as per the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1997 ["CCS (RP) Rules" for short]. The petitioners are all aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal since the benefit of the earlier judgment would stand effaced by reason of the fixation of the date at 01.01.1996; which has no nexus to the controversy agitated.

(3.) Sri.P.V.Mohanan, learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the petitioners' right to have the Special Pay included along with the Basic Pay stood concluded by Annexure-A2 order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), the challenge against which was dismissed in the Special Leave Petition as evidenced from Annexure-A3. All the petitioners were parties in different Original Applications as is seen from the number of Special Leave Petitions, all of which stood rejected by Annexure-A3 order. Despite the Tribunal having decided in their favour the implementation was never carried out. The implementation was only far later in the year 2009 as per Annexure-A7 order. Based on Annexure-A7, the applicants approached the respondent authorities for reckoning their pension in accordance with the declaration made in Annexure-A2 which was specifically re-affirmed in Annexure-A6. On such representations being submitted the official respondents sought to decline the benefit of the order of the CAT by Annexures A8 to A10 which are challenged before the Tribunal. Annexure A8 speaks of restricting the benefit to the petitioners in O.A. 618 of 2002, especially noticing the observations in A6 judgment; a challenge made from the order in that OA. The petitioners are entitled to pay fixation as on 01.01.1996, which is the date of implementation of the Vth CPC. Such pay fixation has to be carried out conferring the benefit of the order at Annexure-A2, by merging their Special Pay with the Basic Pay as on 31.12.1995.