P S BALASUBRAMANIAM Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present writ petition, the petitioner, who retired as a Deputy Registrar of this High Court, seeks increased pension. Shortly stated, the case of the petitioner is that he retired on 31-3-1996 and till that time, there was no implementation of the recommendations of the VI State Pay Commission. He was drawing the basic pay of Rs.4,2 00 and a special pay of Rs.150/- in the pre-revised scale of pay of Rs.3700-5300. On his retirement, his basic pension was fixed at Rs.2,403/- per month with effect from 1-4-1996. 1.1. There was, in the meantime, Fifth Pay Commission at the instance of the Government of India and ultimately, the Government of India also accepted the recommendations of the said Pay Commission with regard to the employees of the Central Government. The State Government, on its part, constituted a Financial Committee to examine the question of revision of pay and allowances of the State Government employees and teachers based on the recommendations of the V Central Pay Commission. This Committee submitted its report on 16-3-1998 and based on its recommendations, a Government Order, G.O. Ms. No.162 Finance (Pay Cell) dated 13-4-1998 came to be issued. According to this Government Order, the pay of the employees of the State Government was directed to be fixed in the new scales of pay with effect from 1-1-1996. In pursuance of that, the petitioner's salary was fixed at Rs.12,37 5/-, which was about Rs.8,025/- more than his last pay drawn. There is no dispute that the arrears of pay have been received by him as per the formula laid down by the State Government for the three months that he served after 1-1-1996.

(2.) The State Government thereafter passed a Government Order, G.O. No.174 dated 21-4-1998 for re-fixing the pension payable to the retired Government employees. Under this, some principles were laid down for revising the pension, viz. (a)Basic Pension (Pension before commutation) including personal pension; (b)related dearness allowance as on 1-1-1996; (c)the first instalment of Interim Relief of Rs.50/-; (d)the second instalment of Interim Relief of 10% of the pension; and (e)40% increase in basic pension. Under this Government Order, even the persons who had retired earlier to 31-10-1995 were to get the revised pension. Petitioner's case is that a person, who retired on or before 31-12-1995 and drawing a basic pension of Rs.2,403/- would get the revised pension of Rs.6,324/-. There was, however, a different principle adopted in respect of those persons who had retired from service in between 1-1-1996 and 30 -6-1996. It was mentioned in paragraph 7 of the said Government Order that the pension was to be fixed at fifty per cent of the average of the last ten months' pay drawn by that person. The petitioner feels aggrieved by this, as, according to him, that amount is lesser than the amount of pension payable to those person who had retired on or before 31-12-1995. In respect of the employees, who were to retire after 1-7-1996, they were to get the pension at the rate of fifty per cent of the last pay drawn by them. However, in case of the petitioner, the formula applied was the fifty per cent of the average of last ten months' pay. The petitioner submits that this is discriminatory.

(3.) Because of the complaint made, the Government came out with another Government Order, viz. G.O. No.200 dated 18-5-1999 whereby, some further changes came to be made. Under that Government Order, a further respite was given to the persons like the petitioner, who had retired between 1-1-1996 and 30-6-1996. The relevant paragraph reads as follows: 'In respect of those retired from service between 1-1-1996 to 30-6-19 96 whose pension was calculated based on 10 months average pay, if the pension fixed in the revised scale of pay is less than 50% of the minimum of the revised time scale of pay granted with effect from 1-1-1996 applicable to the post last held by the employees concerned at the time of retirement, the pension shall be raised to the level of 50 % of the minimum of that time scale.' It may not be out of place to state that by G.O. Ms. No.200, the Government had agreed to pay fifty per cent of the minimum of revised time scale of pay introduced with effect from 1-1-1996 to those employees who had retired from services prior to 1-1-1996. Perhaps, it is only on that ground that same benefit was given to the persons who had retired between 1-1-1996 and 30-6-1996 by equating them in case their pension calculated by the earlier method was lesser than fifty per cent of the minimum revised time scale of pay. Petitioner, however, pleads that this becomes discriminatory though his pension was ultimately raised to Rs.6,000/- since the post he held when he retired carried the scale of pay of Rs.12,000-16500. The advantage of the pension was given to him in terms of G.O. No.200, referred to earlier. Needless to mention that these pension benefits are to be granted not with effect from 1-1-1996 but with effect from 1-4-1999.