The petitioner challenged orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal regarding salary fixation after re-employment, arguing pension deduction was illegal under an Office Memorandum. This Court held the Tribunal correct in reading the 1999 OM with the 1986 OM and dismissed the petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of hearing and order: 3rd March 2015
..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Shakti Chand Sharma, Advocate with petitioner in person. versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS
..... Respondents Through: Mr. Vikram Jetly, CGSC for respondent No. 1 to 3 WITH Mr.Dinesh Kochher, US, NCSK. .
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE I.S.MEHTA O R D E R
% KAILASH GAMBHIR, J. (ORAL)
W.P. (C) No. 997/2015
Page 1 of 4
his salary on re-employment after his retirement. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner had retired from Group B post and on his re-employment, he cannot be paid a pay scale less than the one which was applicable at the relevant time. Another contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in third and fourth spell of re-employment of the petitioner i.e. from 16.2.2001 to 30.06.2002 and 1.7.2002 to 28.01.2003, the respondents have themselves ignored the deduction of pension of the petitioner and fixed his pay at the minimum pay scale applicable however for the earlier periods of re-employment of the petitioner
i.e. from 7.3.2006 to 31.3.2007 and from 10.4.1997 to 9.4.2000, the respondents have illegally deducted the pension amount from his salary.
W.P. (C) No. 997/2015
Page 2 of 4
submits that the respondents have yet not taken any steps to recover the said excess amount paid to the petitioner.
5. “We have seen the O.M. dated 02.07.1999 relied upon by the applicant. The subject of the said O.M. is as follows:-
Recommendations of the 5th Central Pay Commission-Payment of Dearness Relief to reemployed pensioners and employed family pensioners.
Clearly this deals with payment of dearness relief to re-employed pensioners. Further, reading of Para-2 and Para-3(a) relied upon by the applicant also
W.P. (C) No. 997/2015 Page 3 of 4
makes to clear that the main subject of this O.M. is regarding payment of dearness relief and the manner in which it has to be computed in cases of reemployment. Further, para-3(d) of this O.M. reads as follows:-
While implementing these decisions, orders issued by the Department of Personnel & Training vide OM No.3/1/85-Estt(Pay-II) dated 31.07.1986 and as amended from time to time regarding fixation of pay of re-employed pensioners shall be duly kept in view.
This gives credence to the argument of the respondents that O.M. dated 02.07.1999 should not been seen in isolation but it should be read with O.M. dated 31.07.1986.”
KAILASH GAMBHIR, J
I.S. MEHTA, J
MARCH 03, 2015 pkb
W.P. (C) No. 997/2015
Page 4 of 4
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim that the respondents were not allowed to deduct his entire pension from his salary after re-employment.
Whether the Office Memorandum dated 2nd July 1999 governs the fixation of pay for a re-employed pensioner without reference to the 31.07.1986 OM.
M.R. Bhangalya
Union of India
Kailash Gambhir
I.S. Mehta
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
