IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C)
4572/2012 ALL INDIA S-30 PESIONERS ASSOCN( Petitioners) V/s UNION OF INDIA &
W.P.(C) 7342/2012 CENTRAL GOVT. PENSIONERS ASSOCN ( Petitioners)
V/s UNION OF INDIA
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR
RAO
O R D E R (brief)
19.08.2013
.Keeping
in view the aforesaid facts, none of which are disputed by learned counsel for
the respondents, with consent of learned counsel for the parties we set aside
the impugned decision(s) dated March 06, 2012 and simultaneously we restore OANo.937/2010
and OANo.2101/2010 for fresh adjudication on merits by the tribunal n the claim
of the petitioners for full parity. The decision shall be rendered after giving
full opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and the decision dated November
01, 011 passed by the Tribunal in the case of S-29 scale retirees shall not be
treated as binding upon it by the Tribunal for the reasons on the subject of
full party, the said decision was pronounced notwithstanding said retirees giving
up the claim for full parity. . The matter would be decided in remand as early
as possible and preferably within three months from today. 10. Parties shall
appear through their counsel before the Registrar of the Tribunal in the two original
applications on September 09, 2013 on which date OA No.937/2010 and OA No.2101/2010
shall be listed before the Registrar.
The writ
petitions stand disposed of.
No costs.
PRADEEP
NANDRAJOG, J. V. KAMESWAR RAO,
J.
AUGUST
19, 2013
ReplyDeleteIt was heard on 09/09/2013 & next date of hearing is 25/09/2013
In the case of Army personnel, the pension benefit in the next higher scale is given, provided the employee reaches the maximum in the scale of pay, at the time of retirement. I was told by a retired Army officer. If that so, why such benefits are not given to other pensioners? Is it not against the constitution, as all are to be treated equally. Can you please elaborate on this? Thanking you.
ReplyDeleteDear Mr. Subra,
ReplyDeleteEvery ministry & every department has its own departmental promotion policy.In India we have no common promotional policy for all the departments.It is also not feasible.Promotional policy is the prerogative of the particular department.The court can not interfere in it if there is no discrimination made between the employ of that particular department.I am an employee who has been destined to retire from the same post I was appointed besides having higher educational & professional qualification with good work record & appreciation.Hence you can neither compel your department to implement the promotion policy of another department nor call it unconstitutional.The only way to compel your department to implement the same is through collective bargaining by trade unions/ associations.
Thank you. I want whether it is correct.
ReplyDeleteDear Shri Menon,
ReplyDeleteNow since all the hurdles put up by the GOI have been crossed including dismissal of curative petition of GOI , also in contempt proceedings the Govt. Counsel has announced that law ministry has advised the GOI to implement the judgement no other remedy is available to GOI but to implement the judgement for which maximum time allowed is 3 months . GOI had already accepted the judgement vide their letter dated 28.1.2014, with the payment of arrears from 24.9.2012 and calculated the 50% pension on qualifying service of 33 years which condition was neither in the recommendations of 6CPC nor in the resolution of cabinet. So para 5 of the above letter i.e. condition of pro-rata is required to be removed and 50% pension on the minimum of pay band plus grade pay is payable, which is the minimum pension for pre 2006 pensioners . There can not be any condition for the minimum pension. Do you agree?
I.R.Amar