COL. (RETD.) B.J. AKKARA versus THE GOVT. OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 7 S.C.R. 58 · Decided: 10-10-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.P. MATHUR · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
COL. (REID.) B.J. AKKARA 
THE GOVT. OF INDIA AND ORS. 
OCTOBER I 0, 2006 
B 
(G.P. MATHUR AND R.V. RA VEENDRAN, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
Pension-Stepping up of pension under Ministry of Defence Circular 
C dated 7.9.99-Whether non-practising allowance should be taken into account 
for stepping up of pension pre 1.1.96 ritirees-Claim regarding-Armed 
Forces-Army-Medical, Dental and Veterinary Officers-Retired prior to 
1.1.1996-Government of India, Ministry of Defence Circular dated 7.9.1999-
/nterpretation of-Clarification by circular dated 11.9.2001-Validity of-
D Held, Circular dated 7. 6.1999 merely stepped up the pension to 50% of the 
minimum pay in the revised scale of pay introduced w.e.f 1.1.1996 of the rank 
held by such pensioner, where his pension was less-Since NPA had already 
been taken into account at the time of calculating the pension of pre-1996 
retirees, NP A is not to be taken into account again for stepping up of their 
pension as per Circular dated 7.6.1999-Validity of circular dated I 1.9.2001 
E is upheld-The two Circulars relate not only to pension but also family 
pension and this decision will apply to family pension also-Constitution of 
India, 1950-Article 14-Res judicata-Estoppel-Administrative Law-
Principles of legitimate expectation. 
F 
Words and Phrases: 
Expression 'not less than 50% of the minimum pay in the revised scale 
of pay' as occurring in Government of India, Ministry of Defence Circular 
dated 7.6.1999-Meaning of 
The petitioners served as Medical, Dental and Veterinary Officers in 
G the Army under the Ministry of Defence and retired prior to 1.1.1996. The 
non-practising allowance (NPA) granted to them while in service was taken 
into account for calculating their pension. The Circular dated 7.6.1999 
provided that w.e.f. 1.1.1996 pension of all Armed Forces Pensioners 
irrespective of their date of retirement would not be less than 50% of the 
H 
58 
-
"'· 
.. 
"'} 
COL. (RETD.) B.J. AKKARA v. THE GOVT. OF INDIA 
59 
minimum pay in the revised scale of pay introduced w.e.f. t. l.1996 of the rank A 
held by the pensioner. By Circular dated 1 t.9.2001 it was clarified that NPA 
was not to be taken into consideration after re-fixation of pay on notional basis 
on t.l.1996 and that it was also not to be added to the minimum of the revised 
scale of pay as on 1.1.1996 in cases where consolidated pension was to be 
stepped upto 50% in terms of the Circular dated 7.6.1999. Consequently, B 
pension of the petitioners was revised by excluding the NP A element, by issuing 
corrigenda to their PPOs. The petitioners filed writ petitions in various High 
Courts praying for quashing of the circular dated 11.9.2001 and the 
consequential corrigenda and for a direction to the respondents to take into 
account the NPA at the rate of 25% of the basic pay including rank pay as 
was being done till the issue of the Circular dated 11.9.2001. On the C 
applications filed by the Union of India, all the writ petitions were transferred 
to the Supreme Court. 
It was contended for the pensioners that the words "minimum pay" used 
in the Circular dated 7.6.1999, should, as regards the Medical Officers, be 
interpreted as minimum pay in the revised scale plus NPA as in their case D 
the term 'pay' means and includes basic pay plus NPA; that adding NPA to 
the basic pay for arriving at the pension of those who retired on or after 
1.1.1996 and not to add NPA in the case of pre-1996 retirees amounts to 
hostile discrimination violating Article 14 of the Constitution and the 
principles relating to pension laid down in the judgments of the Supreme 
Court; and that the respondents having accepted and implemented the decision E 
of the Delhi High Court on a similar issue are required to extend a similar 
treatment to Defence Service Medical Officers also. 
Dismissing the petitions, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The Circular dated 7.6.1999 neither prescribes the F 
requirements/qualifications for entitlement to pension nor the method of 
determination of pension. It only effectuates the President's decision that the 
pension (which has already been determined in accordance with the applicable 
rules/orders) irrespective of the date of retirement, shall not be less than 
50% of the minimum pay in the revised scales of pay introduced with effect 
from l.1.1996. The President's decision given effect by Circular dated 7.6.1999 G 
· only extends to all pre 1996 retirees, who did not have the benefit of fixation 
of
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.