LexUNION OF INDIA versus R. SETHUMADHAVAN & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
675
UNION OF INDIA
v.
R. SETHUMADHAVAN & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 3173 of 2018)
MARCH 22, 2018
[MADAN B. LOKUR AND DEEPAK GUPTA, JJ.]
Service law: Pension – Railways – Post of Train Examiner –
On 30.9.1997, policy resolution was notified by the Government of
India relating to the scope and extent of the application of the Fifth
Central Pay Commission – On 17.12.1998, an Office Memorandum
was issued that with effect from 1.1.1996, pension of all pensioners
irrespective of their date of retirement shall not be less than 50% of
the minimum pay in the revised scale of pay introduced w.e.f.
1.1.1996 of the post last held by the pensioner – On 11.5.2001,
another Office Memorandum was issued clarifying the Office
Memorandum dated 17.12.1998 – The dispute arose whether the
Office Memorandum dated 11.5.2001 overrides Office Memorandum
17.12.1998 – Held: The tribunal was right in relying on *K.S.
Krishnaswamy case wherein it was held that the recommendations
of the Fifth Pay Commission were accepted by a policy resolution
dated 30.9.1997 that the ceiling on the amount of pension will be
50% of the highest pay in the government – The pension of all pre
1.1.1996 retirees including pre 1986 retirees shall be consolidated
as on 1.1.1996 but the consolidated pension shall not be brought
on to the level of 50% of the minimum of the revised pay of the post
held by the pensioner at the time of retirement – Office Memorandum
dated 17.12.1998 and 11.5.2001 are both complementary to each
other – Both clarify the government policy resolution – Therefore
the contention that Office Memorandum dated 11.5.2001 overrides
the original OM dated 17.12.1998 thereby creating two classes of
pensioners is ill founded – High Court erred in not referring to this
judgment and in holding in favour of the respondent.
*K.S. Krishnaswamy & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr.
(2006) 13 SCC 215 : [2006] 9 Suppl. SCR 330 –
relied on.
[2018] 3 S.C.R. 675
675
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
676
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 3 S.C.R.
Case Law Reference
[2006] 9 Suppl. SCR 330 relied on Paras 11, 13, 16
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3173
of 2018.
From the Judgment and Order dated 02.08.2016 of the High Court
of Judicature at Madras in Writ Petition No. 13207 of 2013.
Ajit Kumar Sinha, Sr. Adv, Ms. Reena Pandey, Mrs. Anil Katiyar,
Advs for the Appellant.
Vikas Mahendra, Ms. Pritha Srikumar, Advs for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
MADAN B. LOKUR, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. More than 140 years ago, it was said by the Privy Council:
“These proceedings certainly illustrate what was said by
Mr. Doyne, and what has been often stated before, that the
difficulties of a litigant in India begin when he has obtained a
Decree.”1
A somewhat similar fate seems to await government servants –
on getting retired, they have to struggle for the due pension. This is a
classic case of a railway employee who retired as a Train Examiner on
31st March, 1991 and his pension woes are being decided after 27 years
and unfortunately not in his favour.
3. We recommend to the Department of Personnel and Training
of the Government of India to try and make life after retirement easier
for a government servant by having appropriate legislation enacted by
Parliament or applicable Pension Rules rather than a khichdi of
Instructions, Office Memoranda, Clarifications, Corrigenda and so on
and so forth.
4. When the respondent retired as a Train Examiner with the
Indian Railways, he was in the pay scale of Rs. 1400–2300. After the
5th Central Pay Commission was implemented, the replacement scale
for the post of Train Examiner (which was apparently abolished) became
Rs.4500-7000.
1General Manager of the Raj Durbhunga, under the Court of Wards v. Maharajah
Coomar Ramaput Sing, (1871-2) Vol. XIV Moo, I.A.605
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
677
5. According to the respondent the post of Train Examiner was
re-designated as Junior Engineer Grade-II and the revised pay of a Junior
Engineer Grade-II was recommended by the 5th Central Pay Commission
to be Rs. 5000-8000. The difference in the replacement scale of a Train
Examiner as against the revised scale in the case of Junior Engineer
Grade–II made a difference of about Rs. 500 per month in the pension
entitlement of the respondent.
6. On 30th September, 1997 a Policy Resolution was notified by
the Government of India relating to the scope and extent of the application
of the recommendations of the 5th CentraExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.