CWP(T) No. 586/2008 19.07.2010 Present: Mr. M. L. Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 & 2 Mr. Varun Chandel, vice counsel for respondent No. 3 On the basis of re-fixation of his pay in terms of Office Order dated 12.10.1999, petitioner is also claiming benefits of revised pension w.e.f. 12.10.1999. 2. Order dated 12.10.1999 simply indicates the extent to which the individual concerned is entitled to receive the revised pay scale. However, order dated 26.4.2005 (Annexure A/2), clarifies that prior to 12.7.1999 no arrears are payable to the petitioner and pay fixed is notional. It is not in dispute that the petitioner stands retired from service on 31.01.1998 and HRTC forwarded the petitioner’s case for revised pension which was turned down by the respondent No. 3. 3. Respondent No.3 has offered the petitioner by filing its reply, inter alia stating that:- “In reply to this para it is respectfully submitted that the revised pension case of the applicant for revision of pensionary benefits, who retired from Govt. service w.e.f. 31/01/98 was forwarded by the Joint Director, Transport, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla-4 vide their letter No.2016 dated 07/06/2005. But neither the revised pension papers were filled in properly nor the proper revised pay fixation entries were made in the service book. Accordingly the revised pension case alongwith service book was returned vide letter No.1907-08 dated 20/07/2005 and dated 20/10/2005 seeking some clarification regarding pay fixation. The case was resubmitted to replying respondent vide letter dated 10/2006. On scrutiny of service book, pay fixation entries made at page-32, it was found that pay of the applicant was fixed on “notional basis’ and no arrears due to pay fixation had been paid to him. In terms of Rules 33 of CCS (Pension Rules), 1972 (copy enclosed as annexure R-1), pensionary benefits are to be calculated on the basis of actual pay drawn by the retiree during the service. Whereas in the case of applicant, revised pay fixation entries made in the service book were on notional basis and no arrear was paid. Accordingly revised pension case was returned to the respondent department vide letter Number 8195-96 dated 18/10/2006 (copy enclosed as annexure R- 2), stating therein that no revision is admissible under above rule. Thus the contention of the applicant that replying respondent has misinterpreted the rules is not tenable, hence denied vehemently. The replying respondent has taken the action under rules. Rest of the averments need no submission.” 4. Rule 33 of the C.C.S. Pension Rules, 1972 are clear. Thus petitioner cannot be held entitled for revised pension. The respondents have correctly appreciated and implemented the Rule in question. 5. For the aforesaid reasons, I find no merit in the present petition. The same is consequently dismissed. ( Sanjay Karol ), Judge. July 19, 2010 (rana)