THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P.NO.16613 OF 2006 O R D E R Heard both the counsel. 2. The petitioner worked as Assistant Accounts Officer in the respondent – A.P.Transco and retired with effect from 31.3.2006 at Eluru. The respondent – corporation issued notification “A.P. Transco Revised Pay Scles 2006”, revising the scales of pay with effect from 1.4.2006. As the respondent – Corporation denied the revised pay scales to him, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. 3. The above issue is no longer res integra. A Full Bench of this court in PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, A.P. HYDERABAD AND ANOTHER v. C.SUBBA RAO[1], held as under: 55.This question would arise only in Writ Petition No.22042 of 2003 as the respondent therein also claimed DA installments at 49%. As held by us supra, a Government servant who would be retiring on the last day of the month would cease to be Government servant by midnight of that day and he would acquire status of pensioner and therefore he would be entitled for all the benefits given to a pensioner with effect from first day of the succeeding month. In Banerjee case (supra), the Supreme Court laid down that as soon as first day of the succeeding month commenced, petitioner retired and gave the benefit of enhanced DA. The same view has been consistently followed in subsequent decisions as well. To that extent, it must be held that the learned Tribunal has taken correct view. 4. Another Division Bench of this court in UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FOOD & AGRICULTURE, NEW DELHI v. P.S.R.KUMAR SINHA [2], held as under: “2:00 RESPONDENTS 2:1 The Two Respondents In the writ are the retired senior scientists. 2:2 They worked in the Central Government before retirement. 3:00 FACTS 3:01 The service and the retirement of the Respondents with the Petitioners is an admitted fact. 3:02 They retired with effect from 31.12.1995 (AN) on attaining the age of superannuation. 3:03 Thereafter, the respondents have submitted the proposals for fixation of pension requesting that their pension may be fixed by calculating their basic pay as Rs.14,940/-. It is on the revised scale. 3:04 Since the pensionary benefits are not released they approached the Central Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad through O.A.No.384 of 2001 for a direction to the petitioner to release the benefits with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. Order all the pensioners are entitled to the benefit of minimum pay in the revised scale of pay with effect from 1..1.1996, and as the respondents retired from service with effect from 31.12.1995, their pensionary benefits are to be fixed on the basic pay of Rs.14,940/- the revised basic pay. The Tribunal also relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reported as S.Banergee v. Union of India reported in AIR 1990 SC 285 and finally held that the date of retirement of respondents would be 1.1.1996 but not 31.12.1995. 5. Following the above judgments, this court in W.P.No.5182/2001 dated 2.9.2008, considering similar circumstances, where the petitioner therein retired from service with effect from 31.1.1999 and sought for revised pensionary benefits and gratuity which came into force with effect from 1.4.1999, and where the claim was rejected, this court held that such rejection cannot be sustained and the same is without application of mind and held that the petitioner therein is entitled for the benefits which were given from 1.4.1999,though he retired on 31.1.1999. The relevant portion of the judgment is extracted as under for better appreciation: “From the material on record, it could be seen that without considering the specific submissions made by the petitioner in his representation claiming for the pensionary and other benefits as per the G.Os, the respondent simply rejected the claim of the petitioner under the impugned memo stating that the G.Os containing the pensionary benefits and gratuity have come into force w.e.f 1.4.1999 whereas, the petitioner retired from service on 31.1.1999, therefore, he is not entitled for the benefit. Such rejection, in my view is without application of mind. The analogy of the case relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner stated supra, would make it clear that the petitioner, who retired from service on one day prior to the relevant G.Os coming into existence, would be entitled for the benefit contemplated under the said G.Os. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for the benefit claimed by him. Under these circumstances, I am of the view that the impugned communication issued by the 1st respondent is liable to be set aside and accordingly, the same is set aside on the ground that it is passed without application of mind and without reasoning. The respondents 1 and 2 are directed to consider the case of the petitioner, afresh with regard to the claim of the petitioner, claiming the enhanced retiremental/pensionary benefits, and pass appropriate orders, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.” 6. In view of the law laid down in the above judgments, it is clear that the petitioner is entitled for the A.P.Transco Revised Pay Scales 2006 and accordingly his pension shall be in terms of T.OO. (Joint Secy. – Per) Ms.No.72 dated 7.6.2006. 7. Accordingly the respondents are directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for fixing his pension in terms of A. P. Transco Revised Pay Scales 2006 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. AVS --------------------------- 29—07—2011 [1] 2005(2) ALD 1 (FB) [2] W.P.No.17900/2005 dated 8.2.2006