12 Jul


Detailed briefings by our lawyer on issue of Pension Revison in PB CAT ND on 10th July, 23.

The captioned matter was listed today as Item No. 31 before a bench comprising of Hon’ble Member Tarun Shridhar and Hon’ble Member Pratima K. Gupta at the CAT, Principal Bench in Court No. 5.

As informed earlier, the listing of the matter today was only intimated on Friday. I had also apprised earlier that Mr. Rao and myself will be in a part-heard hearing post 2 PM. In any event, Mr. Rao was present today till 1:45 PM, at which time the Bench rose and the captioned matter was only taken up at 2:40 PM (post lunch). I was present in Court all day for the hearing today.
Senior Advocate Mr. Sanjoy Ghosh appeared on behalf of the Applicants in the connected matter and apprised the Court of the previous Order dated 29.03.2023 when the matter was argued at length by the Applicants (on which date Mr. Rao was also present and advanced arguments). Thereafter, it was submitted that the Respondent (UOI) was required to advance arguments as dates had been taken on the last two occasions.

After some arguments advanced by Mr. Ghosh, I advanced arguments on behalf of the Applicants in the captioned matter and specifically pointed out the assurances given in the memorandum dated 30.09.2000 as also the terms and conditions of the absorption letter as per which Pension under Rule 37-A CCS (CCA) was required to be in accordance with the government scheme of pension. I informed the Court that except pension revision, all benefits of the 7th CPC were extended vis-a-vis the applicants.

Despite lengthy arguments by the Respondent UOI as also the representative present from DOT (Director Establishment), and their persistent effort to link pay revision and pension revision, the Bench was not inclined to accept that argument. The Bench orally observed that in view of the terms and conditions of absorption read in conjunction with Rule 37-A, it is not known as to how pension revision was being denied basis pay revision.

Reference to judgments of the Hyderabad and Ernakulam Bench was made in respect of denial of pension revision. However, the bench observed that they were in respect of single applicants and their entitlement. The present case was primarily a case wherein a right to pension revision was being sought.

The arguments went on for 1.5 hours after which the Bench adjourned the same for 13.07.2023 under the ‘part heard’ category and granted 5 minutes time to each party to argue. Should you have any further queries, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Warm regards,
Gauri Courtesty: SNPWA CHQ WEB