CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.13031 OF 2005 1. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH GENERAL MANAGER, EASTERN RAILWAY, KOLKATTA (W.B.). 2. THE DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER, EASTERN CENTRAL RAILWAY, MUGALSARAI. 3. SENIOR DIVISIONAL PERSONNEL OFFICER, MUGALSARAI 4. DIVISIONAL EASTERN RAILWAY, MUGALSARAI (U.P.) 5. DIVISIONAL ACCOUNTS OFFICER, MUGALSARAI DIVISION, EASTERN CENTRAL RAILWAY, MUGALSARAI ---------------------------------petitioners Versus 1. YOGENDRA PRATAP SINGH SON OF LATE BIRENDER PRATAP SINGH B/17, P.C. COLONY, LOHIA NAGAR, KANKARBAGH, PATNA- 20, 2. THE REGISTRAR, C.A.T. PATNA BENCH -------------------------------Respondents For The Petitioner :Mr. Bhupendra Narain Yadav, Advocate For The Respondent :Mr. Ashwani Kumar Singh, Sr. Advocate P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.K.KATRIAR THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL S.K. Katriar, J. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 16.9.2004 (Annexure-1), passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, in O.A. no. 1039 of 2002 ((Jogendra Pratap Singh versus The Union of India & Ors), whereby the writ petition preferred by respondent no. 1 herein has been allowed, and the respondent authorities have been directed to revise the pensionary benefits of the petitioner as per the formula indicated therein with the consequential benefits like payment of the differential amount. 2. A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of the writ petition may be indicated. The recommendations of the 2 Vth Pay Commission with respect to the employees of Indian Railways were enforced w.e.f. 1.1.1996. Respondent no. 1 superannuated from the services of the Indian Railways w.e.f. 31.7.1996, while he was posted as Loco Inspector. His post- retirement benefits were calculated and paid to him. Respondent no. 1 felt aggrieved by the calculation and represented before the authorities for re-calculation of his post-retirement benefits which was disallowed, leading to the present O.A. no. 1039 of 2002, which has been allowed by the impugned order. 3. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It appears to us that the admitted position is that the petitioner was, at the time of his superannuation, posted as a Loco Inspector. The Tribunal has indeed come to the conclusion that the pensionary benefits of respondent no. 1 should be calculated after taking into account running allowance/element, dearness allowance, interim relief, and 40 % pay fitment weightage on the basic pay which shall include the amount of 3500 plus 30 per cent running element by circular no. 45 of 1993 of the Indian Railways marked Annexure-2. Paragraph 5.5 of the relevant circular was indeed noticed by the Tribunal and is reproduced hereinbelow for the facility of quick reference. “ 5.5 For the purpose of pensionary benefits, the basis pay shall also include with effect from 1.1.19993 an add-on element of 30 % of basic pay in the case of Loco Inspectors. If a Loco Inspector retires before completing a period of 10 months under this Scheme, he shall be permitted the benefit of add-on element to basic 3 pay on a pro-rata basis depending on the actual period of service under the Scheme. The benefit of add-on element to basic pay shall not be admissible for any purpose other than computation of pensionary benefits.” It is thus evident that the Tribunal rightly concluded that, on the strength of paragraph 5.5 of the aforesaid circular, the pensionary benefits of respondent no. 1 ought to have been calculated after taking into account 30 per cent add-on element. 4. Indeed the learned counsel for the Railways had conceded the position before the Tribunal. The position is manifest from paragraph 8 of the order of the Tribunal, and is reproduced hereinbelow for the facility of quick reference: “ The ld. Counsel for the respondents on reading of para 5.5. of Railway Board’s letter dated 25.11.1992 has agreed that for pensionary benefits the amount of basis pay be worked out by adding 30 per cent running element and the sum of these two amounts shall be the basic pay. He has also agreed that the other allowances like dearness allowance, interim relief and 40 per cent pay fitment weightage should be calculated on the basic pay so computed.” 5. In the result, we do not find fault with the order of the Tribunal. The writ petition is dismissed. Kishore K. Mandal, J I agree. Patna High Court 12th April, 2010 NAFR/pkj (S.K. Katriar, J.) ( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )