Union of India vs R. Sethumadhavan & Anr.

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date

22 March 2018

Case No.

Civil Appeal No. 3173 of 2018

Result

Allowed

Bench

Madan B. Lokur, Deepak Gupta

Citation

[2018] 3 S.C.R. 675 : 2018 INSC 255

Headnote

Service law: Pension – Railways – Post of Train Examiner – On 30.9.1997, policy resolution was notified by the Government of India relating to the scope and extent of the application of the Fifth Central Pay Commission – On 17.12.1998, an Office Memorandum was issued that with effect from 1.1.1996, pension of all 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 of the post last held by the pensioner – On 11.5.2001, another Office Memorandum was issued clarifying the Office Memorandum dated 17.12.1998 – The dispute arose whether the Office Memorandum dated 11.5.2001 overrides Office Memorandum 17.12.1998 – Held: The tribunal was right in relying on *K.S. Krishnaswamy case wherein it was held that the recommendations of the Fifth Pay Commission were accepted by a policy resolution dated 30.9.1997 that the ceiling on the amount of pension will be 50% of the highest pay in the government – The pension of all pre 1.1.1996 retirees including pre 1986 retirees shall be consolidated as on 1.1.1996 but the consolidated pension shall not be brought on to the level of 50% of the minimum of the revised pay of the post held by the pensioner at the time of retirement – Office Memorandum dated 17.12.1998 and 11.5.2001 are both complementary to each other – Both clarify the government policy resolution – Therefore the contention that Office Memorandum dated 11.5.2001 overrides the original OM dated 17.12.1998 thereby creating two classes of pensioners is ill founded – High Court erred in not referring to this judgment and in holding in favour of the respondent.

*K.S. Krishnaswamy & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr. (2006) 13 SCC 215 : [2006] 9 Suppl. SCR 330 –

relied on.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by MADAN B. LOKUR, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. More than 140 years ago, it was said by the Privy Council: “These proceedings certainly illustrate what was said by Mr. Doyne, and what has been often stated before, that the difficulties of a litigant in India begin when he has obtained a Decree.” 1 A somewhat similar fate seems to await government servants – on getting retired, they have to struggle for the due pension. This is a classic case of a railway employee who retired as a Train Examiner on 31st March, 1991 and his pension woes are being decided aft

View Subscription Plans →