BHAGWANDAS BULCHAND ASNANI Vs. DIRECTOR OF PENSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) With the consent of the parties the matter is taken up for final hearing. Since the facts are more or less common and the questions involved are common in both the petitions, they are dealt with the common judgement.

(2.) The short facts of the case are that the petitioners have retired from service on 31-12-1995 afternoon. The Government revised the pay-scale of the employees w.e.f. 1-1-1996. It is the case of the petitioners that the Government initially issued a Resolution No.PGR/1098/6/M dated 20-1-1998 for the revision of the pension of the employees, who were drawing pension on or before 31-12-1995 and the petitioners were not drawing pension on 31-12-1995 and, therefore, the petitioners would not be included in the said resolution. It is further the case of the petitioners that the Government simultaneously on the same day issued another resolution bearing No.PGR/1098/7/M dated 20-1-1998 for revision of the pension and as per the said resolution since the benefits are to be given for revision of the pension of the employees, who retired from 1-1-1996 onwards, the pension of the petitioners is required to be fixed accordingly. The contention of the petitioners is that the respondents have fixed the pension of the petitioners as if they have retired on 31-12-1995 and as a consequence thereof, the benefits of the recommendations of Fifth Central Pay Commission to be given to its employees w.e.f. 1-1-1996 is not given for the purpose of fixation of pension and, therefore, these petitions.

(3.) Mr.Chhablani as well as Mr.Pujara, learned Counsel appearing for respective petitioners, have submitted that their case is covered by the Resolution No.PGR/1098/7/M dated 20-1-1998 in as much as they can be said to have retired from 1-1-1996 and it has also been submitted that they were not drawing pension or no pension was sanctioned so far as the petitioners are concerned as on 31-12-1995 and, therefore, the pension of the petitioners is required to be revised as if they have retired from 1-1-1996. In furtherance to the aforesaid submission, Mr.Pujara has relied upon the judgement of the Central Administrative Tribunal in OA Nos.459/1997 and 460/1997 in the case of "Venkatram Rajagopalan v. Union of India and Ors." and the copy of the said judgement dated 15th October, 1999 upon which reliance is placed is produced at Annexure "H" to the petition. It has been submitted that, therefore, the petitioners can be said to have retired on 1-1-1996 and as a consequence thereof, the petitioners would be entitled to the revision of the pension by having benefits of the recommendation of Fifth Central Pay Commission and, therefore, it has been submitted that the respondents should be directed to revise the pension of the petitioners accordingly.