AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (7) TMI 1335
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ohli, Advs For The Respondents : Mr Shobha, Saransh Saini, Akanksha Kaushik, Raghav Pandey, Ranbir Singh Yadav, Puran Mal Saini and Anzu K. Varkey, Advs. JUDGMENT Dipak Misra, J. 1. The Respondents were working on different posts of Lecturers, Librarians and PTIs, who retired prior to 1.1.2006. It is not in dispute that all of them were appointed in different years from 1950 to 1976 and all of them retired between 1991 to 2004. It is also not in dispute that all of them had been granted Lecturers (Selection Scale) on or before 1.1.1986. Thus, all of them had completed three years of service in the said pay-scale prior to 1.1.2006. After the pay revision took place, on the basis of the recommendation of the 4th Pay Commission, the Respondents/similarly situated employees got the benefit of revision of the pay scale with effect from 1.1.1986 vide notification dated 3.6.1988. As per the Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scales for Government College Teachers) Rules, 1988, (for short, "the 1988 Rules"), the schedule indicates the existing pay scale and the revised UGC pay scale. A chart in that regard would indicate as follows: In the present case, we are only concer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0% of original pension/family pension/consolidated family pension under FD order No. F. 6(3) FO (Rule 5) 12004 dated 24.05.2004, where applicable. (iii) Dearness Relief @ 24% of original pension/family pension/consolidated pension/consolidated family pension plus Dearness Pension. (iv) Fitment weightage @ 40% of the existing pension/family pension. Where the existing pension in (i) above includes the effect of merger of 50% of dearness relief w.e.f. 01.07.2004, the existing pension for the purpose of fitment weightage will be recalculated after excluding the merged dearness relief of 50% from the pension. 6. It has also been stipulated therein that the amount so arrived at will be regarded as consolidated pension/family pension with effect from 1.9.2006. The relevant part of Paragraph 5 of the said circular/memorandum reads as follows: The consolidated pension (treated as final 'Basic Pension') as on 01.09.2006 of pre-01.09.2006 pensioner shall not be lower than 50% of sum of the minimum pay of the post in the running pay band plus grade pay introduced w.e.f. 01.09.2006 corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale of the post from which pensio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Respondents could have been extended the benefit. The decision issued by the Finance Department was also not placed for consideration before the Single Bench. Single Bench has not taken into consideration the guidelines which were required to be taken into consideration before reaching any decision. Similarly, the stand of the State Government is that newly upgraded pay scale has been introduced for the first time on 1.1.2006, whether it would be applied to the persons who have already retired on the date it has been created with the certain riders. This aspect would also be required to be examined that Finance Department has not accepted the proposal for enhancement. The financial liability is to be borne by the State Government. It is also to be taken into consideration whether the pay scale in running pay band 37400-67000 and grade pay 9000/- is admissible to Lecturers who have completed three years in selection scale on or after 01.01.2006 only. The dispensation is allowed under CAS selection scale or ACP admissible to State Government Employees on completion of 9, 18 and 27 years service; it is not a regular line promotion or automatic. In various other States also, similar re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....300; that the Sixth Pay Commission had recommended to revise these pay scales to Rs. 15600-39100 with Academic Grade Pay (hereinafter referred to As 'AGP') of Rs. 6,000/- to the first existing pay scale, Rs. 7,000/- as AGP as Senior Scale, to second existing pay scale, and Rs. 8,000/- as AGP as Selection Scale to the third pay scale; and that it had also recommended for bifurcation of pay scales of Lecturers (selection scale) into two, namely, Rs. 15600-39100 with AGP of Rs. 8000/- for those lecturers (selection scale), who have not completed 3 years of service in the existing pay scale as on 01.01.2006 and the pay scale of Rs. 37400-67000 with AGP of Rs. 9000/- for all those, who had completed 3 years service in the existing pay scale as on 01.01.2006 and onwards, subject to the guidelines issued in this regard. 11. After so stating, the Division Bench opined that the Respondents were entitled as per paragraph 5 of the Memorandum dated 12.9.2008 for fixation of their pension at the minimum of 50% in the running pay band plus grade pay of the post introduced vide notification dated 12.10.2009. It took note of the fact that the pension was revised as per notification date....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the old Regulation and was continuing, then the benefit of Revised Pay Scale Rules, could not be denied to him. 12. After so stating, the Division Bench referred to the decision rendered by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of State of Haryana and Anr. v. Satyapal Yadav and Anr. LPA No. 1955 of 2012 decided on 14.1.2013. Thereafter, the Division Bench referred to the written arguments submitted by the Joint Director, Pension and Pensioners Welfare Department, Government of Rajasthan, considered the submissions of the Respondents, referred to paragraph 5 of the memorandum dated 12.9.2008 and dealt with the submission that reasoning given in the memorandum did not entitle the Respondents revision of pension in the corresponding pay scale of Rs. 37400-67000 with AGP of Rs. 9000, and declined to accept the same. Eventually, the Division Bench ruled thus: It is admitted that all the Respondents were serving as Lecturers in the Selection Scale on the date of their retirement, which is prior to 01.01.2006 when the recommendations of the Sixth Pay Commission were enforced. It is also admitted that all the Respondents were considered for grant of Selection Scale pay in ac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....citor General further submitted that the High Court has failed to appreciate that in terms of Rule 165 of Rajasthan Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1996 as well as Rule 3 of Notification dated 12.10.2009, if any doubt arises as to the interpretation of the said Rules it shall be referred to Finance Department and the Finance Department has, vide its letter dated 22.01.2010 and Memorandums dated 18.06.2013 and 26.05.2014, clarified the said issue and the said clarifications have not been challenged. It is further urged by him that the notifications issued by the Ministry of Human Resource Development dated 31.12.2008 and 15.12.2009 relating to Revision of Pay and Revision of Pension are not binding on the State of Rajasthan as they are specifically for lecturers in Central Universities/Colleges, and moreover the State can decide its own policy and not to act in accordance of what the Central Government has decided. It is further urged by him that there is a difference between Revision of Pay and Revision of Pension, and the notification dated 12.10.2009 relating to revision of pay is only applicable to the existing employees and not to those who had retired prior to 01.01.2006. 16....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d the same which has been affirmed by this Court. Similarly, in the present case, the benefit is deprived vide order dated 22.1.2010. There is no cavil over the fact that the Respondents have been fitted into a pay band and extended the benefit of pension under the revision of pay from 2006 as the Respondents had completed three years of service. Paragraph 5 clearly lays the postulate that the consolidated pension (treated as final basic pension) as on 1.9.2006, all pre-1.9.2006 pensioner shall not be lower than 50% of sum of the minimum pay of the post in the running pay band plus grade pay introduced w.e.f. 1.9.2006 corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale of the post from which pensioner had retired. The only rider is the minimum qualifying service and all the Respondents have the experience of three years by 1.9.2006. As the factual score would depict, the Respondents were paid pension on a lower band after the revision of the pay scale despite the fact that the persons who were already in service with the similar qualification have been kept in the higher pay band plus grade pay. 19. Paragraph 5 requires to be scrutinised and on such a scrutiny it becomes graphically clea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ive pension flows to the officer not because of any such order but by virtue of the rules. This view was reaffirmed in State of Punjab v. Iqbal Singh (1976) 2 SCC 1. 20. We may hasten to add that though the said decision has been explained and diluted on certain other aspects, but the paragraphs which we have reproduced as a concept holds the filed as it is a fundamental concept in service jurisprudence. It will be appropriate and apposite on the part of the employers to remember the same and ingeminate it time and again so that unnecessary litigation do not travel to the Court and the employers show a definite and correct attitude towards employees. We are compelled to say so as we find that the intention of the State Government from paragraph 5 of the circular/memorandum has been litigated at various stages to deny the benefits to the Respondents. It is the duty of the State Government to avoid unwarranted litigations and not to encourage any litigation for the sake of litigation. The Respondents were entitled to get the benefit of pension and the High Court has placed reliance on the decision of another High Court which has already been approved by this Court. True it is, the....