CWP No. 519-CAT of 2003 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 7.7.2008 (i) CWP No. 519-CAT of 2003. Union of India and others ......Petitioners Versus Jai Singh and another ....Respondents Present: Shri D.R. Sharma and Shri H.S. Saini, Advocates, for the petitioners. Shri A.L.Vohra, Advocate, for respondent No.1. (ii) CWP No. 12666 of 2006. Commander Works Engineer, Headquarter, Pathankotand others ......Petitioners Versus Parveen Singh and another ....Respondents Present: Shri D.R. Sharma and Shri H.S. Saini, Advocates, for the petitioners. Shri Rohit Seth, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? HEMANT GUPTA, J. This order shall dispose of Civil Writ Petition No. 519-CAT of 2003, directed against the order dated 2.8.2002 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for short `the Tribunal') and Civil Writ Petition No. 12666-CAT of 2006 directed against the order of the Tribunal dated 27.2.2006 following the earlier order CWP No. 519-CAT of 2003 (2) dated 2.8.2002. Vide the aforesaid orders, the Tribunal has allowed the Original Applications filed by the applicant-respondents, herein for re-determination of pension with effect from 1.1.1996 on the basis of pay scale applicable to the post held by the applicants at the time of retirement and not the pay scale corresponding to the post held by them. The issue raised in the present writ petitions is not res-integra. The matter stands concluded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.S. Krishnaswamy etc. v. Union of India and another, 2007(1) SCT 353, wherein it has been held that the office memo dated 11.5.2001, in fact is a classificatory in nature. Earlier on 17.12.1998 (Annexure A.6), a circular was issued by the Government of India, to the effect that the pension of all the 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. But, by the subsequent office memo dated 11.5.2001, it was clarified that the pension of all the pensioners, irrespective of their date of retirement, shall not be less than 50% of the minimum pay in the revised scale of pay with effect from 1.1.1996 of the post last held by the pensioner shall mean that the pension of all the pensioners irrespective of their date of retirement shall not be less than 50% of the minimum of the corresponding scale on 1.1.1996 of the scale of pay held by the pensioner at the time of superannuation/retirement. In the aforesaid judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the office memo dated 11.5.2001 is a classificatory in nature and therefore, the case of the pension of the petitioners is required CWP No. 519-CAT of 2003 (3) to be determined in terms of the said office memo. In view of the said judgment, the orders passed by the learned Tribunal are not tenable and the same are accordingly set aside. The petitioners are directed to redetermine the pension of the applicant-respondents in terms of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, if not already re-determined. Before parting with the judgment, it may be noticed that in the case of Jai Singh, revised benefits on the basis of circular dated 17.12.1998 have been paid. Therefore, if after revision of the pension in terms of the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment, it is found that any excess payment has been made to the said applicant, the same shall not be recovered as the applicant is old in age and was paid such pensionary benefits without any misrepresentation on his part, but on the basis of the interpretation of the circular by the Tribunal. With the said direction, both the writ petitions are allowed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE (MOHINDER PAL) JUDGE 07-07-2008 ds