Pageviews last month

Thursday, June 6, 2013

HEALTH-CHECKUP OF THE MEMBERS OF BHARAT PENSIONER SAMJ,MADHUPUR!

The Bharat Pensioner Samaj,madhupur organised a Pensioner's meet on 5th June,2013 at 04-30 pm at State Bank Of India,Madhupur Main Branch,that the function was sponsored by the SBI,Madhupur Branch.Sarbasri Dr.Arun Gupta,MedicalOfficer,Referel Hospital,Madhupur & Dr.Rajesh Kumar,Medical Officer (on contract)E.Rly,Health Unit,Madhupur examined the health of about 20 numbers of Senior Pensioners/family Pensioners of CentralGovt.Railways and the Pensioners of Jharkhand State.Sri R.N.Dutta,Hon'ble Vice-President (East),Bharat Pensioner Samaj presided over the function,Sri N.C.Jha,Hon'ble Principal Of Madhupur Collage was also invited as "Chief Guest",Sri B.B.Paul,Hon'ble President of Kolkata Custom PensionerAssociation and Sri R.N.Goswami,Rly Pensioner Of E.Rly,Burdwan were also invited to attend the said meeting.Both of them appreciated the roll of the General Secretary,Bharat Pensioner Samaj,Madhupur for organising such type of Pensioner's meet.The Chief Manager Of SBI,Madhupur,Sri Madhukar Sah and other Official Of SBI,Madhupur awarded the pensioners by offering some token of GIFT and sweets.

Wednesday, May 1, 2013

Judgement Of Delhi High Court

$~5-8 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: April 29, 2013 + W.P.(C) 1535/2012 UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .....Petitioners Represented by: Mr.Rajeeve Mehra, ASG with Mr.Ruchir Mishra and Mr.Ashish Virmani, Advocates versus CENTRAL GOVT. SAG & ORS. ..... Respondents Represented by: Mr.Nidhesh Gupta, Sr.Advocate with Mr.M.K.Ghosh and Mr.Tarun Gupta, Advocates W.P.(C) 2348/2012 UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .....Petitioners Represented by: Mr.Rajeeve Mehra, ASG with Mr.Ruchir Mishra and Mr.Ashish Virmani, Advocates versus D.L.VHORA & ORS. ..... Respondents Represented by: Mr.Sushil Kumar Malik, Advocate W.P.(C) 2349/2012 UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .....Petitioners Represented by: Mr.Rajeeve Mehra, ASG with Mr.Ruchir Mishra and Mr.Ashish Virmani, Advocates versus W.P.(C) Nos.1535/2012 & 2348-50/2012 Page 2 of 13 PPS GUMBER & ORS. ..... Respondents Represented by: Mr.Sushil Kumar Malik, Advocate W.P.(C) 2350/2012 UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .....Petitioners Represented by: Mr.Rajeeve Mehra, ASG with Mr.Ruchir Mishra and Mr.Ashish Virmani, Advocates versus CENTRAL GOVERNMENT PENSIONERS ASSOCIATION & ORS. ..... Respondents Represented by: Mr.Sushil Kumar Malik, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral) 1. We note that on January 28, 2013 the petitioners have issued an office order dated January 28, 2013 which reads as under:- “OFFICE MEMORANDUM Sub: Revision of pension of pre-2006 pensioners –reg. The undersigned is directed to say that in pursuance of Government’s decision on the recommendations of Sixth Central Pay Commission, orders were issued for revision of pension/family pensioners vide this Department’s O.M. No.38/37/08 P&PW(A) dated 1.9.2008, as amended from time to time. 2. It has been decided that the pension of pre 2006 pensioners are revised w.e.f. 1.1.2006 in terms of para 4.1 or para 4.2 of the aforesaid OM dated 1.9.2008, as amended from time to time, would be further stepped up to 50% of the sum of minimum of pay in the pay band and the W.P.(C) Nos.1535/2012 & 2348-50/2012 Page 3 of 13 grade pay correspondent to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired, as arrived at with reference to the fitment tables annexed to the Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure OM No.1/1/2008-IC dated 30th August, 2008. In the case of HAG and above scales, this will be 50% of the minimum of the pay in the revised pay scale arrived at with reference to the fitment tables annexed to the above-referred OM dated 30.8.2008 of Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure. 3. The normal family pension in respect of pre-2006 pensioners/family pensioners as revised w.e.f. 01-01-2006 in terms of para 4.1 or para 4.2 of the OM dated 01-09-2008 would also be further stepped up to 30% of the sum of minimum of pay in pay band and the grade pay corresponding to the pre- revised pay scale from which the Government servant had retired, as arrived at with reference to the fitment tables annexed to the Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure OM No.1/1/2008 – IC dated 30-08-2008. In case of HAG and above scales, this will be 50% of the minimum of the pay in the revised pay scale arrived at with reference to the fitment tables annexed to the above referred OM dated 30-08-2008 of Ministry of Finance (Department of Expenditure). 4. A revised concordance table ( Annexure ) of the pre – 1996, pre-2006 and post 2006 pay scales/pay bands indicating the pension/family pension (at ordinary rates) payable under the above provisions is enclosed to facilitate payment of revised pension/family pension. 5. The pension so arrived at in accordance with para 2 above and indicated in Col.9 of Annexure will be reduced pro-rata, where the pensioner had less than the maximum required service for full pension as per rule 49 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 as applicable before 1.1.2006 and in no case it will be less than Rs. 3500/-p.m. 6. The family pension at enhanced rates (under sub rule (3) (a) of Rule 54 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 of pre-2006 pensioners/family pensioners revised w.e.f. 1.1.2006 W.P.(C) Nos.1535/2012 & 2348-50/2012 Page 4 of 13 in terms of para 4.1 or this Department’s OM No.1/3/2011-P&PW(E) dated 25.5.2012 would be further stepped up in the following manner:- (i) In the case of Government servants who died while in service before 01-01-2006 and in respect of whom enhanced family pension is applicable from the date of approval by the Government i.e.24.9.2012, the enhanced family pension will be stepped up to 50% of the sum of minimum of pay in the pay band and the grade pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale in which the Government servant had died, as arrived at with reference to the fitment table annexed to the Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure OM No.1/1/2008-IC dated 30-08-2008. & In the case of HAG and above scales, this will be 50% of the minimum of the pay in revised pay scale arrived at with reference to the fitment table annexed to the above referred OM dated 30-08-2008 of Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure. (ii) In the case of a pensioner who retired before 01-01-2006 and in respect of whom enhanced family pension is applicable from the date of approval by the Government, i.e.24-09-2012, the enhanced family pension will be stepped up to the amount of pension as revised in terms of para 2 read with para 5 above. In case the pensioner has died before the date of approval by the Government, i.e. 24.09, 2012 the pension will be revised notionally in terms of para 2 read with para 5 above. The amount of revised enhanced family pension will, however, not be less than the amount of family pension at ordinary rates as revised in terms of Para 3 above. 7. In case the pension consolidated pension/family pension/enhanced family pension calculated as per Para 4.1 of OM No. 38/37/08-P&PW (A) dated 01-09-2008 is higher than the pension/family pension calculated in the manner indicated above, the same ( higher consolidated pension/family pension ) will continue to be treated as basic pension/family pension. 8. All other conditions as given in OM No.38/37/08-P & W.P.(C) Nos.1535/2012 & 2348-50/2012 Page 5 of 13 PW(A) dated 1.9.2008 as amended from time to time shall remain unchanged. 9. These orders will take effect from the date of approval by the Government, i.e. 24-09-2012. There will be no change in the amount of revised pension/family pension paid during the period 01-01-2006 and 23-09-2012, and, therefore, no arrears will be payable on account of these orders for that period. 10. In their application to the persons belonging to the Indian Audit and Accounts Department, these orders issue in consultation with the Comptroller and Auditor General of India. 11 All the Ministries/Departments are requested to bring the contents of these orders to the notice of Controller of Accountants/Pay and Accounts Officer s and attached and subordinate Offices under them on a top priority basis. All pension disbursing officers are also advised to prominently display these orders on their notice boards for the benefit of pensioners. 12. Hindi version will follow. Sd/- (Tripti P.Ghosh) Director To All Ministries/Departments of Government of India As per mailing list.” 2. The only issue therefore which survives is, with respect to paragraph 9, of the office memorandum aforenoted which makes it applicable with effect from September 24, 2012, and thereby denying arrears to be paid to the pensioners with effect from January 01, 2006. 3. In short, the Government of India has tacitly admitted that it was in the wrong and that the Tribunal is correct. 4. As is well known, the recommendations of the 6th Pay W.P.(C) Nos.1535/2012 & 2348-50/2012 Page 6 of 13 Commission did away with the hitherto fore applicable pay scales; replacing the same with pay bands having grade pay. For example, pay band I (PB-I) was `5200-20200 and embraced 12 previous pay scales between `2750-4400 and `8000-13500, but with 12 grade pays between `1800-5400. 5. How would the existing pensioners get pension was decided by the Government as per a resolution dated August 29, 2008 which accepted para 5.1.47 of the recommendations of the 6th Pay Commission to the following effect:- “All past pensioners should be allowed fitment benefit equal to 40% of the pension excluding the effect of merger of 50% dearness allowance/dearness relief as pension (in respect of pensioners retiring on or after 1/4/2004) and dearness pension (for other pensioners) respectively. The increase will be allowed by subsuming the effect of conversion of 50% of dearness relief/dearness allowance as dearness pension/dearness pay. Consequently, dearness relief at the rate of 74% on pension (excluding the effect of merger) has been taken for the purposes of computing revised pension as on 1/1/2006. This is consistent with the fitment benefit being allowed in case of the existing employees. The fixation of pension will be subject to the provision that the revised pension, in no case, shall be lower than fifty percent of the sum of the minimum of the pay in the pay band and the grade pay thereon corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired.” 6. The respondents had made many submissions in their favour; two of which pertained to the law declared by the Supreme Court in the decision reported as 1990 (4) SCC 270 D.S.Nakara Vs. UOI and (2008) 9 SCC 125 UOI Vs. S.P.S.Vains. The Tribunal has negated said pleas. However, reasoning of the respondents on other plea pertaining to W.P.(C) Nos.1535/2012 & 2348-50/2012 Page 7 of 13 resolution No.12 aforesaid has found favour with the Tribunal. 7. We find that a Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court deciding W.P.(C) No.19641/2009 R.K.Aggarwal & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. has referred to the decision impugned by the Tribunal, with reference to an identical question which arose in the State of Haryana because Government of Haryana had adopted the same policy decision of the Central Government. In the decision dated December 21, 2012, in paragraphs 21 to 26, the Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court has reasoned as under:- “21. On the recommendations made by VI CPC, which stood validly accepted by the Cabinet, it was argued before the Tribunal that principle for determining the pension has been completely altered under the garb of clarification. It was argued that on the basis of the aforesaid resolution/modified parity revised pension of the pre-2006 pensioners shall not be less than 50% of the minimum of the pay band + grade pay, corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired. 22. The Tribunal has accepted this contention and because of this reason, it is held that subsequent OMs dated 03.10.2008 and 14.10.2008 purportedly issued to clarify para 4.2 of OM dated 01.09.2008 were contrary to the plain meaning of the said para and whereby the criteria and principle for determination of the pension had been completely changed that too when these two subsequent OMs dated 03.10.2008 and 14.10.2008 were issued by the lower authorities having no power to issue such clarification. 23 After considering the arguments of learned counsels for all the parties, we are of the opinion that it is not even necessary to go into the various nuances and nitty grittys, which are insisted by learned counsels for the petitioners based on D.S. Nakara line of cases and N. Subbarayudu and others and S.R. Dhingra and others (supra), wherein ratio of D.S. Nakara is explained. We proceed on the basis W.P.(C) Nos.1535/2012 & 2348-50/2012 Page 8 of 13 that fixation of cut off date by the government was in order and to this extent we agree with the reasoning given by the Tribunal where similar arguments, as advanced by the petitioners before us, were rejected. The issue can be resolved on the interpretation of OM dated 29.08.2008 itself. It is not in dispute that vide resolution dated 29.08.2008, recommendations of the 6th Central Pay Commission were accepted by the government and the pension was also to be fixed on the basis of formula contained therein. We have already reproduced the recommendations of the 6th Central Pay Commission, as contained in para 5.1.47, which was accepted by the government vide Item No. 12 of resolution dated 29.08.2008 with certain modifications. Based on this resolution, OM dated 01.09.2008 was issued. We have also reproduced para 4.2 thereof. This states in unequivocal terms that “revised pension in no case shall be lower than 50% of the minimum of pay in the pay band plus grade pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale------”. The clear purport and meaning of the aforesaid provision is that those who retired before 01.01.2006 as well were ensured that their revised pension after enforcing recommendations of the 6th Central Pay Commission, shall not be less than 50% of the minimum of the pay band plus grade pay corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioners had retired. However, notwithstanding the same and without any provocation, the junior functionaries in the Department of Pension nurtured a doubt “though there was none” and note was prepared on that basis, which led to issuance of OMs dated 03.10.2008 and 14.10.2008. The effect of these two OMs was to make revision in the pension of pre-2006 retirees by giving them less than 50% of the sum of minimum of the pay in the pay band. To demonstrate this, Mr. H.L. Tikku, learned senior counsel appearing in some of these cases drew our attention to the following chart:- Min of Pre-revised scale Pay in the Pay Band Grade Pay Revised Basic Pay (2+3) (`) Pension 50% of (2+3) (`) 1 2 3 4 5 W.P.(C) Nos.1535/2012 & 2348-50/2012 Page 9 of 13 S-24 (14300) 37400 8700 46100 23050 S-25 (15100) 39690 8700 48390 24195 S-26 (16400) 39690 8900 48590 24295 S-27 (16400) 39690 8900 48590 24295 S-28 (14300) 37400 10000 47400 23700 S-29 (18400) 44700 10000 54700 27350 The first 4 columns of the above table have been extracted from the pay fixation annexed with MOF OM of 30th August, 2008 (referred to in para 4.5 (iii) above). Revised pension of S 29 works out to `27,350 which has been reduced to `23,700 as per DOP OM of 03.10.2008 (para 4.8 (B) below). 24. As per the impugned OM dated 14.10.2008 in the case of S-24 officers the corresponding pay in the Pay Band against 14,300/- is shown as 37,400/-. In addition, Grade Pay of `8700/- was given totaling `46,100/-. Similarly, revisions concerning all the other pay scales were accepted by the aforementioned OM dated 14th October, 2008. The illegality which has been perpetrated in the present matter is apparent from the fact that whereas an officer who was in the pre-revised scale S-24 and receiving a pay of `14,300/- would now receive `37,400/- plus grade pay of `8700/- and his full pension would accordingly be fixed at `23,050/- (i.e. 50% of 37,400/- pay plus grade pay `8700/-) pursuant to the implementation of VI CPC recommendations after 01.01.2006, whereas a person retiring before 01.01.2006, who was drawing a pay of `18,400/- or even `22,400/- (maximum of scale) in the pre-revised S-29 scale will now be getting pension as only 23,700/- (i.e. 50% of pay of ` 37,400/- plus grade pay of `10,000/-). 25. This has arisen because of resolution dated 29.08.2008 and has resulted because of deletion of certain words in para 4.2 of the OM dated 01.09.2008 or 03.10.2008. This aspect is beautifully demonstrated by the Tribunal in its Full Bench judgement in the following manner with which we are entirely agree: “25. In order to decide the matter in controversy, at this stage, it will be useful to extract the relevant portions of para 5.1.47 of the VI CPC recommendation, as accepted by the Resolution dated 29.08.2008, para 4.2 of the OM dated W.P.(C) Nos.1535/2012 & 2348-50/2012 Page 10 of 13 1.9.2008 and subsequent changes made in the garb of clarification dated 3.10.2008, which thus read: Resolution NO.38/37/8-P&PW (A) dated 29.08.2008 – Para 5.1.47 (page 154-155) Para 4.2 of OM DOP&PW OM No.38/37/8-P&PW (A) dated 1.09.2008 (page 38 of OA) OM DOP & PW OM No.38/37/8-P&PW (A) dated 3.10.2008 The fixation as per above will be subject to the provision 'that the revised pension, in no case, shall be lower than 50% of the sum of the minimum of the pay in the pay band and the grade pay thereon corresponding to the prerevised pay scale form which the pensioner had retired. The fixation as per above will be subject to the provision 'that the revised pension, in no case, shall be lower than 50% of the(sum of the) minimum of the pay in the pay band plus (and) the grade pay (thereon) corresponding to the prerevised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired. The Pension Calculated at 50% of the [sum of the] minimum of the pay in the pay band [and the grade pay thereon corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale] plus grade pay would be calculated (i) at the minimum of the pay in the pay band (irrespective of the pre-revised scale of pay plus) the grade pay corresponding to the prerevised pay scale. For example, if a pensioner had retired in the pre-revised scale of pay of `18400-22400, the corresponding pay band being `37400- 67000 and the W.P.(C) Nos.1535/2012 & 2348-50/2012 Page 11 of 13 corresponding grade pay being `10000 p.m., his minimum guaranteed pension would be 50% of `37400+`10000 (i.e. `23700) Strike out are deletions and bold letter addition Strike out are deletions and bold letters addition. 26. As can be seen from the relevant portion of the resolution dated 29.8.2008 based upon the recommendations made by the VI CPC in paragraph 5.1.47, it is clear that the revised pension of the pre-2006 retirees should not be less than 50% of the sum of the minimum of the pay in the Pay Band and the grade pay thereon corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale held by the pensioner at the time of retirement. However, as per the OM dated 3.10.2008 revised pension at 50% of the sum of the minimum of the pay in the pay band and the grade pay thereon, corresponding to pre-revised scale from which the pensioner had retired has been given a go-by by deleting the words 'sum of the' 'and grade pay thereon corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale' and adding 'irrespective of the pre-revised scale of pay plus' implying that the revised pension is to be fixed at 50% of the minimum of the pay, which has substantially changed the modified parity/formula adopted by the Central Government pursuant to the recommendations made by the VI CPC and has thus caused great prejudice to the applicants. According to us, such a course was not available to the functionary of the Government in the garb of clarification thereby altering the recommendations given by the VI CPC, as accepted by the Central Government. According to us, deletion of the words 'sum of the' 'and grade W.P.(C) Nos.1535/2012 & 2348-50/2012 Page 12 of 13 pay thereon corresponding to the pre-revised scale' 'and addition of the words 'irrespective of the prerevised scale of pay plus', as introduced by the respondents in the garb of clarification vide OM dated 3.10.2008 amounts to carrying out amendment to the resolution dated 29.08.2008 based upon para 4.1.47 of the recommendations of the VI CPC as also the OM dated 1.9.2008 issued by the Central Government pursuant to the aforesaid resolution, which has been accepted by the Cabinet. Thus, such a course was not permissible for the functionary of the Government in the garb of clarification, that too, at their own level without referring the matter to the Cabinet.” 26. It is for the aforesaid reasons, we remark that there is no need to go into the legal nuances. Simple solution is to give effect to the resolution dated 29.08.2008 whereby recommendations of the 6 th Central Pay Commission were accepted with certain modifications. We find force in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that subsequent OMs dated 03.10.2008 and 14.10.2008 were not in consonance with that resolution. Once we find that this resolution ensures that “the fixation of pension will be subject to the provision that the revised pension, in no case, shall be lower than 50% of the sum of the minimum of the pay in the pay band and the grade pay thereon corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale from which the pensioner had retired”, this would clearly mean that the pay of the retiree i.e. who retired before 01.01.2006 is to be brought corresponding to the revised pay scale as per 6th Central Pay Commission and then it has to be ensured that pension fixed is such that it is not lower than 50% of the minimum of the pay in the band and the grade pay thereon. As a result, all these petitions succeed and mandamus is issued to the respondents to refix the pension of the petitioners accordingly within a period of two months and pay the arrears of pension within two months. In case, the arrears are not paid within a period of two months, it will also carry interest @ 9% w.e.f. 01.03.2013. There shall, however, be no order as to cost.” W.P.(C) Nos.1535/2012 & 2348-50/2012 Page 13 of 13 8. We are in complete agreement with the reasoning of the Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court and adopt the same and do not burden ourselves any further. We conclude by noting that as regards the substance of the view taken by the Tribunal, even the Central Government accepts its correctness, but insists to make the same applicable prospectively. 9. The writ petitions are dismissed. The decision of the Full Bench of the Tribunal is upheld but without any order as to costs. (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE (V. KAMESWAR RAO) JUDGE APRIL 29, 2013 mamta

FINALY JUSTICE SEEMS TO HAVE WON!

Finally justice seems to have won Dear Friends Finally, there is hope and justice seems to have won. Our case came up today in Delhi High Court before the Bench consisting of Justice Nanadrajog and Justice Kameshwar Rao. Shri S.B. Lal and I attended the hearing and our Advocate was personally present. Apparently the Bench had read our Counter and the Affidavit and straightaway started tackling the Government Advocate. The latter's half hearted pleadings to confuse the issue had no impact on the Bench. Seeing so many senior citizens, it was clear that the Bench was convinced about the injustice. Our Advocate clarified a few points. While detailed verdict will be given in the next few days and it is our impression that GOI Writ has been dismissed. As soon as we get the detailed order, we propose to revive our Contempt petition in CAT to enforce the compliance of its 1-11-2011 verdict. In the meantime, this is for your information. Paratap Narain

Thursday, April 4, 2013


[Bottom] Home > Gazals Compressed Mp3 > FORGET ME NOT - JAGJIT SINGH Join Our Facebook Page and Stay Updated Files Are Arranged As Alphabetical Orders Switch To Latest Updates » aankhon se yun aansoo -Jagjit Singh [www.MusicYatra.Com].mp3 (2810Kb ) » abhi woh kamsin - Jagjit Singh [www.MusicYatra.Com].mp3 (3178Kb ) » husan walon ko - Jagjit Singh [www.MusicYatra.Com].mp3 (2729Kb ) » in ashqon ko - Jagjit Singh [www.MusicYatra.Com].mp3 (3262Kb ) » koi fariyad - Jagjit Singh [www.MusicYatra.Com].mp3 (4230Kb ) » phool bhare hain -Jagjit Singh [www.MusicYatra.Com].mp3 (2344Kb ) » tera chehra hai aaina - Jagjit Singh [www.MusicYatra.Com].mp3 (2268Kb ) » teri berukhi - Jagjit Singh [www.MusicYatra.Com].mp3 (2609Kb ) » tum hamare nahi - Jagjit Singh [www.MusicYatra.Com].mp3 (2802Kb ) » utha suraahi - Jagjit Singh [www.MusicYatra.Com].mp3 (3014Kb )

Friday, February 1, 2013

Suoreme Court Judgement.

Page 1 “ REPORTABLE” IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS.8848-8849 OF 2012 Kallakkurichi Taluk Retired Official Association, Tamilnadu, etc. …. Appellants Versus State of Tamilnadu …. Respondent WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.8850-8852 OF 2012 Tiruneveli Corporation city Pensioners Federation …. Appellant Versus State of Tamilnadu & Ors. …. Respondents WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.8853-8855 OF 2012 Madurai Corp. Retired Officers Welfare Association …. Appellant Versus State of Tamilnadu & Ors. …. Respondents WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.8856 OF 2012 Tamilnadu Retired Officers Assn. & Its Affiliate, etc. …. Appellant Versus State of Tamil Nadu …. Respondent WITH 1 Page 2 CIVIL APPEAL NO.8857 OF 2012 N. Subramaniam & Ors. …. Appellants Versus State of Tamilnadu & Ors. …. Respondents WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.8858 OF 2012 Chennai District Retired Officials Assn. …. Appellant Versus State of Tamilnadu & Anr. …. Respondents WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.8859 OF 2012 Tamilnadu Retired Govt. Employees Assn. …. Appellant Versus State of Tamilnadu & Anr. …. Respondents WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.8860 OF 2012 Navaneethakrishnan & Ors. …. Appellants Versus State of Tamilnadu & Ors. …. Respondents WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.8861-8863 OF 2012 M.M.C. Pensioners Welfare Association & Ors. …. Appellants Versus State of Tamilnadu & Ors. …. Respondents WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.8864 OF 2012 2 Page 3 G. Lakshmikanthan & Ors. …. Appellants Versus State of Tamilnadu & Anr. …. Respondents WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.8865 OF 2012 L.N. Ranganathan & Ors. …. Appellants Versus State of Tamilnadu & Ors. …. Respondents WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.8866 OF 2012 P.V. Thirumal & Ors. …. Appellants Versus State of Tamilnadu & Anr. …. Respondents WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.8868 OF 2012 K.N. Alavandar & Ors. …. Appellants Versus State of Tamilnadu & Anr. …. Respondents WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.8869 OF 2012 Retired Officials Association …. Appellants Versus State of Tamilnadu …. Respondent WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.8871 OF 2012 S. Jeevi Kanagammal & Ors. …. Appellants 3 Page 4 Versus State of Tamilnadu & Anr. …. Respondents WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.8872 OF 2012 V. Thirunavukkarasu & Ors. …. Appellants Versus State of Tamilnadu & Anr. …. Respondents WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.8873-8874 OF 2012 Tamilnadu Retired School-College Tech. Assn. …. Appellants Versus State of Tamilnadu & Ors. …. Respondents WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.8875 OF 2012 Ramanathanpuram District All Pensioners & Senior Citizens Welfare Assn. …. Appellant Versus Government of Tamilnadu …. Respondent WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.8876 OF 2012 S. Shan Mugam & Ors. …. Appellants Versus State of Tamilnadu & Anr. …. Respondents WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.8877-8878 OF 2012 S. Shanmugum & Ors. …. Appellants Versus 4 Page 5 State of Tamilnadu & Ors. …. Respondents WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.8879 OF 2012 R. Thanumoorthy & Ors. …. Appellants Versus State of Tamilnadu & Anr. …. Respondents WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.8880 OF 2012 K. Parthasarathy & Ors. …. Appellants Versus State of Tamilnadu & Ors. …. Respondents WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.8881 OF 2012 A. Sethu & Ors. …. Appellants Versus State of Tamilnadu …. Respondent WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.8882 OF 2012 A. Shanmugathai & Ors. …. Appellants Versus State of Tamilnadu & Ors. …. Respondents WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.8883 OF 2012 R. Kandasamy & Ors. …. Appellants Versus State of Tamilnadu & Anr. …. Respondents 5 Page 6 WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.8870 OF 2012 P. Chellappan & Ors. …. Appellants Versus State of Tamilnadu & Anr. …. Respondents J U D G M E N T JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J. 1. The Government of Tamil Nadu has been issuing executive order from time to time to determine the composition of allowances to be added to pay for quantifying wages for calculating pension. It is the case of the appellants, that the State Government followed a consistent practice of treating ‘dearness allowance’ as ‘dearness pay’ for the computation of pension and other retiral benefits. Illustratively, we are informed, that by a Government Order dated 11.3.1970 the State Government included ‘dearness allowance’ at the rate then prevalent, as a component of wages for calculating average emoluments for determining pension, for those who retired on or after 26.2.1970. The instant Government Order dated 11.3.1970 was applicable to employees who retired between 26.2.1970 and 1.10.1970. 2. One R. Narasimachar who had retired on 21.11.1969 was not extended the benefit of ‘dearness allowance’ drawn by him at the time of his retirement, while computing his pension. This denial was because the Government order dated 11.3.1970, extended the benefit referred to above only to such employees who had/would retire on or after 26.2.1970. 6 Page 7 Dissatisfied with the aforesaid denial, he filed Writ Petition no.1815 of 1986 contending, that his pension should have been calculated by taking into consideration ‘dearness allowance’ which was being drawn by him at the time of his retirement, as ‘dearness pay’. A learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Madras (hereinafter referred to as, the High Court) allowed the aforesaid writ petition on 15.3.1990 by holding, that the State Government was not right in restricting the applicability of the Government Order dated 11.3.1970 only to employees who retired between 26.2.1970 and 1.10.1970. The learned Single Judge directed, that ‘dearness allowance’ which the appellant was drawing, at the time of his retirement, be treated as ‘dearness pay’ for calculating his pension. On 26.2.1991, the writ appeal filed by the State Government against the order dated 15.3.1990 (passed by the learned Single Judge allowing Writ Petition no.1815 of 1986), was dismissed. 3. Based on the aforesaid judgment dated 15.3.1990, which the State Government accepted, a clarificatory Government Order dated 4.12.1991, was issued. Under the Government Order dated 4.12.1991, even for employees who had retired prior to 1.12.1966, ‘dearness allowance’ actually drawn by them, at the time of their retirement,would be taken as ‘dearness pay’ for purposes of calculating pension. For employees retiring between 1.12.1966 and 25.2.1970, ‘dearness allowance’ upto the level obtaining in December, 1966 would be taken into consideration as ‘dearness pay’ for determining pension (and gratuity). It is therefore submitted, that ‘dearness allowance’ became a component of pension, for all employees who had retired upto 25.2.1970. 7 Page 8 4. In order to place the sequence of facts in the correct perspective, it was further brought to our notice that the Government order dated 11.3.1970 was clarified by a subsequent letter dated 4.12.1991. As per the aforesaid order and letter, Government servants retiring from service on or after 26.2.1970, and upto 1.10.1970, ‘dearness allowance’ up to the level obtaining in December, 1966, was to be reckoned as ‘dearness pay’ for purposes of pension (and gratuity). Thereupon, through a subsequent Government order dated 4.12.1991, directions were issued for extending the benefit contemplated by the Government order dated 11.3.1970 and the Government’s letter dated 4.2.1991, even to those who had retired prior to 26.2.1970. 5. A Government order dated 4.12.1991 was then brought to our notice. It provided, that notional revised pension payable from 1.6.1988 would be encashable only with effect from 1.12.1991. It also provided, that those Government servants who had retired prior to 26.2.1970 but had died before 1.12.1991, would be ineligible for the benefits contemplated for retirees prior to 26.2.1970. However, if the concerned Government employee had died after 1.12.1991, the benefits contemplated for retirees prior to 26.2.1970 would be released to the legal heirs of such retirees. It is, therefore apparent, that for the benefits of the aforesaid Government order, the retirees under reference would be deprived of the actual monetary benefit payable to him, from the date of his or her retirement, till 30.11.1991 (as arrears of pension under the aforesaid Government orders were payable only with effect from 1.12.1991). 6. The aforesaid R. Narasimachar again assailed the Government order dated 4.12.1991, by contesting the determination of the State 8 Page 9 Government, in denying to him, the benefit of arrears from the date of his retirement (on 21.11.1969) till 30.11.1991, by filing Writ Petition no. 4038 of 1992 before the High Court. The aforesaid Writ Petition was allowed by the High Court. The High Court held, that monetary benefits could not be denied for the period preceding 1.12.1991. In other words, retirees before 1.12.1991 were held entitled to arrears from the date of their retirement till 30.11.1991. The cut off date (1.12.1991) for extending the benefit of arrears was accordingly set aside. 7. The judgment rendered by the High Court in Writ Petition no. 4038 of 1992 on 15.6.1993, quashing the action of the State Government in limiting payment of arrears, only with effect from 1.12.1991, was accepted by the State Government. The judgment of the High Court was given effect to, by a Government order dated 26.7.1993, whereby, the earlier Government order dated 4.12.1991 was modified. Under the Government order dated 26.7.1993, pensioners were held eligible for arrears of pension from the date of their actual retirement. The aforesaid benefit of arrears was also extended to legal heirs of such pensioners, who had died in the meantime. 8. Based on the factual position narrated in the foregoing paragraphs, it clearly emerges, that ‘dearness allowance’ was taken as ‘dearness pay’ for employees retiring from government service, at all times, without any interruption, for the computation of retiral benefits including pension. The aforesaid narration also reveals, that the component of ‘dearness allowance’ to be treated as ‘dearness pay’ for being taken into consideration for calculating pension, was determined by the State Government, through Government orders issued from time to time. The 9 Page 10 narration recorded hereinabove pertains to employees whose date of retirement preceded 1.10.1970. 9. The factual position being recorded hereinafter relates to the period after 1.10.1970. 10. On 6.2.1974, a Dearness Allowance Committee was constituted, to inter alia make recommendations, of allowances which should be treated as a component of wages, for calculating pension of retired/retiring employees. On 7.7.1974, the Dearness Allowance Committee inter alia recommended, that ‘dearness allowance’ be treated as ‘dearness pay’ in full, for computing retiral benefits including pension. Accepting the recommendations of the Dearness Allowance Committee, the Finance Department, issued a Government Order dated 6.2.1975 directing, that ‘dearness allowance’ actually being drawn by employees retiring on or after 1.2.1975 be treated as ‘dearness pay’ for calculating average pay ( by taking not consideration 10 months wages, prior to the date of retirement), for calculating pension, (gratuity and travelling allowance). It would be relevant to mention, that at the aforesaid juncture, employees drawing pay upto Rs.299/-, were entitled to Rs.55/- as ‘dearness allowance’; and those drawing pay at Rs.300/- and above, were entitled to Rs.70/- as ‘dearness allowance’. Accordingly, by the Government Order dated 6.2.1975, the State Government, determined the component of ‘dearness allowance’ (Rs.55/- or Rs.70/-, as the case may be) to be taken into consideration, for calculating pension. The intention of the instant Government Order was, that employees retiring on or after 1.2.1975, should derive full benefit of, the merger of the then existing ‘dearness allowance’ into wages, as ‘dearness pay’ for computing pension. The Government order dated 1 Page 11 6.2.1975 permitted employees retiring on or after 1.2.1975, an addition of ‘dearness allowance’ actually being drawn by them, (during the period of ten months, prior to the date of their retirement), by treating the same as ‘dearness pay’, for calculating average wages. The said average wage, would lead to the computation of pension actually payable. 11. K. Venkataraman filed Writ Petition no. 8237 of 1995 before the High Court with a prayer that ‘dearness allowance’ drawn by him for a period of ten months prior to the date of his retirement (on 30.6.1974) be treated as ‘dearness pay’ for calculating his pension. The benefit sought, had been denied because he had retired on 30.6.1974, whereas, the benefit of the Government order dated 6.2.1975 was extended only to such employees who had retired after 1.2.1975. The aforesaid Writ Petition came to be transferred to the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as, the Administrative Tribunal). Before the Administrative Tribunal, the Writ Petition was renumbered as T.A. 845 of 1991. The Administrative Tribunal, by its order dated 1.4.1993, held that K. Venkataraman was entitled to the benefits extended to other pensioners, irrespective of the fact that he had retired (on 30.6.1974 i.e., prior to the cut off date (1.2.1975). 12. The State Government, accepted the decision of the Administrative Tribunal in K. Venkataraman’s case (in T.A. no. 845 of 1991 decided on 1.4.1993), and implemented the same. For the aforesaid purpose, the Finance (Pension) Department issued a Government order dated 23.9.1993. Accordingly, K. Venkataraman’s pension was recalculated by treating ‘dearness allowance’ actually drawn by him, during the ten months preceding the date of his retirement, as ‘dearness pay’. It therefore emerges, that the manner of computing pension for retired and retiring 1 Page 12 employees were equated, in so far as the component of ‘dearness allowance’ is concerned. 13. We were told, that when one or the other Government order introduced a distinction in pensionary benefits, for computing pension, the same was equated through judicial intervention. Such judicial interventions were then adopted by the State Government, from time to time. This aspect of the matter, factual as well as legal, was not disputed by the learned counsel representing the respondents. This position continued till the adoption of the recommendations of the Fourth Tamil Nadu Pay Commission Report, details whereof, shall be narrated soon hereafter. 14. On 1.1.1979, the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as “the Pension Rules”) came to be enforced. After the promulgation of the Pension Rules, pension of retiring government employees had to be determined in consonance with the said Rules. It is not in dispute, that pension to Government employees is now regulated under the Pension Rules. Under the Pension Rules, pension is calculated on the basis of an employee’s emoluments/wages, immediately before his retirement. For this, reference may be made to Rule 30 of the Pension Rules, which is being extracted hereunder:- “30. Emoluments—In the rules, unless the context otherwise requires,-- (1) Emoluments means and include:- (i) Pay, other than special pay granted in view of his personal qualifications, which has been sanctioned for a post held by him substantively or in an officiating capacity (including temporary capacity under emergency provisions) or to which he is entitled by reason of his position in a cadre: (ii) special pay, dearness pay and personal pay; and 1 Page 13 (iii) any other remuneration which may be specially claused as emoluments by the Government.” (emphasis is ours) The emoluments/wages to be taken into consideration for computing pension is dependent on the allowances which are added to pay. The composition and component of the said allowances is determined by the State Government from time to time through Government orders. A perusal of Rule 30 of the Pension Rules reveals, that ‘dearness pay’ is a component of the wages to be taken into consideration for computing pension. And ‘dearness pay’ is a component of ‘dearness allowance; which on a declaration by the State Government approves (through a Government order) for being taken into consideration for calculating pension. 15. In 1986, the Fourth Tamil Nadu Pay Commission gave its report. The Pay Commission recommended, that ‘dearness allowance’, prevalent at the end of three years (after the Pay Commission’s recommendations), should be treated as ‘dearness pay’, in order to ensure a reasonable pension level. The Finance (Pension) Department having considered the recommendations made by the Pay Commission, issued a Government Order dated 30.4.1986, providing that ‘dearness allowance’ and ‘additional dearness allowance’ sanctioned upto 30.9.1987 would be treated as ‘dearness pay’ for calculating pension, in respect of those who retired (or died) on or after 1.10.1987. The concession of adding ‘dearness pay’ was extended to the period of 10 months for calculating average emoluments, for those who retired before or after 31.7.1987. But employees retiring on or after 1.10.1987 were entitled to add ‘dearness allowance’ sanctioned upto 1.10.1987 to their wages, for quantifying pension (family pension and 1 Page 14 death-cum-retirement gratuity). It is therefore apparent, that even after the acceptance of the recommendations of the Fourth Pay Commission report, ‘dearness allowance’ remained a component of wages. As such, ‘dearness allowance’ continued to be taken into consideration for computing pension of retiring government employees. 16. The Fifth Tamil Nadu Pay Commission submitted its report in 1989. The instant Pay Commission recommended, the following formula for calculating pension: Basic Pay Per Month Rate of Pension Per Month i) Not exceeding Rs.1,500 30 percent of basic pay subject to a minimum of Rs.375 p.m. ii) Exceeding Rs.1,500 but not exceeding Rs.3,000/- 20 per cent of basic pay subject to a minimum of Rs.450 p.m. iii) Exceeding Rs.3,000/- 15 per cent of basic pay subject to a minimum of Rs.600 and a maximum of Rs.1,250 p.m. The Fifth Pay Commission also recommended different percentages of increase in pension for existing pensioners, who had retired prior to 1.6.1988. By a Government Order dated 9.8.1989 the Finance Department while accepting the recommendations of the Fifth Tamil Nadu Pay Commission fixed a slab system, for adding ‘dearness allowance’ as ‘dearness pay’ for calculating pension. This decision of the State Government was to be implemented for employees retiring on or after 1.6.1988. 17. Original Application no. 1919 of 1991 was filed by Ambasamudaram, Taluk Pensioner Associations before the Administrative Tribunal. Likewise, a large number of other Original Applications (including OA no. 4952 of 1992, O.A. no. 2227 of 1992, O.A. no. 4265 of 1992, O.A. no. 4953 of 1992, OA no.2645 of 1994 and OA no.2646 of 1994) were filed before the 1 Page 15 Administrative Tribunal. Through the aforesaid original applications, the petitioners/applicants assailed the Government Order dated 30.4.1986 (issued in furtherance of the recommendations made by the Fourth Tamil Nadu Pay Commission), as well as, the Government Order dated 9.8.1989 (issued in furtherance of the recommendations made by the Fifty Tamil Nadu Pay Commission). All the aforesaid original applications were disposed of by the Administrative Tribunal vide a common order dated 6.5.1996. The operative part of the order passed by the Administrative Tribunal while disposing of the aforementioned original applications is being extracted hereunder: “OA 1919/91 We set aside the G.O.Ms. No.810 (Finance and Pay Commission) Department dated 9.8.89 in so far as it affects the applicant’s association and direct the respondent to extend the benefits of 60% increase in the pre-revised pension plus the Dearness Allowance at 608 points available to those who retired prior to 1.6.60 to those pensioners and family pensioners of cases of retirements or death occurring after 1.6.60. OA 2227/92 We quash the G.O.Ms. No.371, Finance dated 30.4.1986 and G.O.Ms.No.911, finance dated 4.12.1991 in so far as they have restricted their applicability to the pensioners and family who retired prior to 1.10.1987 listed in Appendix 1 and 2 and those who retired during the period from 1.10.1987 to 31.5.1988 as listed in Appendix from the services of Government, local bodies and aided educational institutions and direct the respondent to count the DA and ADA as dearness pay for all ten months preceding retirement for computing average emoluments to fix their pensionary benefits including pension and value of commutation and also direct the respondent to pay the arrears of pension, gratuity and value of commutation of pension on such refixation computed from the date of retirement or death as the case may be to the pensioners and family pensioners. OA 4265/92 We quash the G.O.Ms.No.115, Finance dated 6.2.1975 and G.O.Ms.No.911 Finance dated 4.12.1991 in respect of the applicant as far as it relates to classification of pensioners and direct the respondent to extend the benefits of the impugned G.Os. to the affected pensioners and family pensioners and pay the arrears of pension and gratuity and the family pension computed on refixation 1 Page 16 of their original pension or family pension from the date of their retirement or the date of death of the Government servant as the case may be. OA 4953/92 We quash G.O.Ms.No.371, Finance dated 30.4.1986 and G.O.Ms.No.911 Finance dated 4.112.91 in respect of the applicant as far as they have restricted their applicability to the pensioners and family pensioners’ who retired or died as the case may be prior to 1.10.87 and after 1.4.78 and direct the respondent to allow the pensioners who retired during the period from 1.10.87 to 31.5.1988 to count the DA and ADA as dearness pay for all the 10 months preceding retirement for computing average emoluments and extend the benefits of the impugned GOS to them, and pay them the arrears of pension, gratuity and value of commutation on such refixation computed on and from the date of retirement or death as the case may be to the affected pensioners and family pensioners. OA No.2645/94 We direct the respondents to extend the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.679, Finance (Pension) Department, dated 23.9.93 to the applicant also and revise his pension with effect from 1.11.1974 taking into account the Dearness Allowance drawn by him from 9.1.1974 to 31.10.1974 and pay him the arrears due to him consequent on the revision from 1.11.1974. OA No.2646/94 We quash the letter No.88079/Pension/93-I, Finance Department, dated 1.10.1993 and direct the respondent to extend the benefit granted in G.O.Ms.No.115, Finance dated 6.2.75 to those who retired during the period from 1.10.70 to 1.2.75 and pay them ar4rears of pension and DCRG from the dates of their retirement. The applications are allowed. Taking into consideration the fact that most of the applicants would have died or most of them would have reached the age of more than 70, we direct the respondent to refix their pension and pay the arrears within two months from the date of receipt of this order or a copy thereof.” 18. The factual narration recorded hereinabove refers to the Government orders issued from to time, directing the component of ‘dearness allowance’, which was to be taken into consideration as ‘dearness pay’ for computation of pension; the outcome of the challenges raised to the aforesaid Government orders; and the eventual implementation thereof in the context of the implementation of the component of ‘dearness pay’ to be taken into consideration for calculating pension. Even though the 1 Page 17 exhaustive details of the same have been narrated above, it is necessary to record a summary thereof, so as to have a bird’s eye view of the manner in which ‘dearness pay’ has been extended to retired Government employees from time to time. Accordingly, the aforesaid summary is being paraphrased below:- (i) Government order dated 11.3.1970 included ‘dearness allowance’ as a component of wages for calculating pension for only such employees who retired between 26.2.1970 and 1.10.1970. By judicial intervention, the aforesaid Government order extending the benefit of treating ‘dearness allowance’ as ‘dearness pay’, was held to be applicable even to employees who had retired prior to 26.2.1970. The State Government accepted the aforesaid legal position and extended the same benefit of ‘dearness allowance’ by treating the same as ‘dearness pay’ to all pensioners equally. (ii) Government order dated 6.2.1975 was issued to give effect to the recommendations made by the Dearness Allowance Committee to the effect, that ‘dearness allowance’ sanctioned with effect from 1.4.1974 (Rs.55/- for employees drawing pay upto Rs.599/-, and Rs.70/- for employees drawing pay upto Rs.600/- and above) would be treated as ‘dearness pay’ for employees retiring on or after 1.2.1975 ( by ‘adding dearness allowance actually drawn by them during the ten months preceding their retirement. By judicial intervention, it was held that the aforesaid benefit would also extend to such employees who had retired during the period between 1 Page 18 2.10.1970 and 31.1.1975, and that, ‘dearness allowance’ sanctioned from time to time and actually drawn by the retiring employee would be treated as ‘dearness pay’ in case of those who retired during the period between 2.10.1970 and 31.1.1975 (for calculation of pension). (iii) Government order dated 30.4.1986, while accepting the recommendation made by the Fourth Tamil Nadu Pay Commission, provided for certain pensionary benefits to employees who had retired between 1.10.1987 and 31.5.1988, by allowing them to count ‘dearness allowance’ and ‘additional dearness allowance’ as ‘dearness pay’. The concession of ‘dearness pay’ was extended for the entire ten months for calculating average emoluments in case of those who retired after 31.7.1987. By judicial intervention, it was held that the concession of adding ‘dearness allowance’ as ‘dearness pay’ would extend even to employees who had retired (or died) prior to 1.10.1987. It was also held, that pensioners who had retired during the period between 1.10.1987 and 31.5.1988 would be entitled to count ‘dearness allowance’ and ‘additional dearness allowance’ as ‘dearness pay’ (for all the ten months preceding their retirement) for computing average wages for calculating pension. The State Government accepted the aforesaid legal position and extended the aforesaid benefits equally to all pensioners. (iv) Government order dated 9.8.1989, while accepting the recommendations made by the Fifty Tamil Nadu Pay 1 Page 19 Commission, introduced a slab system, for adding ‘dearness allowance’ as ‘dearness pay’ into the component of wages for calculating pension. A distinction was made between employees retiring before and after 1.6.1988. By judicial intervention, the benefit of treating ‘dearness allowance’ as ‘dearness pay’ was extended to employees irrespective of the date of their retirement. (v) Government order dated 4.12.1991 provided, that arrears of pension based on recalculation of pension, by taking into consideration the component of ‘dearness allowance’ as ‘dearness pay’, would be released to pensioners with effect from 1.12.1991, even in cases where the concerned pensioner had retired with effect from a date preceding 1.12.1991. By judicial intervention, arrears of pension, based on recalculation of pension, were ordered to be released to retired employees, by taking into consideration the component of ‘dearness allowance’ as ‘dearness pay’ equally for all employees. The State Government accepted the aforesaid legal position and extended the said benefit to pensioners who had retired prior to 1.12.1991. 19. The aforesaid factual/legal position is a historical narration of the inclusion of ‘dearness allowance’ as ‘dearness pay’ from time to time for computation of pension. What emerges from this narration is, that all pensioners (past, present and future) were equally granted the benefit of ‘dearness allowance’ as ‘dearness pay’ for calculating pension. Whenever a class of pensioners was discriminated against, for computation of 1 Page 20 pension, on the basis of dearness allowance/ pay judicial intervention restored the equation. The equation was then given effect to by the State Government from time to time. Clearly, judicial intervention repeatedly erased the classifications created between pensioners, on the basis of ‘dearness pay’. 20. The present controversy yet again presents a dispute, inter se, between the State Government and retired employees in respect of the component of ‘dearness allowance’ liable to be treated as ‘dearness pay’, for computing pension payable to retired Government employees. Even though the instant controversy also arises out of Government order dated 9.8.1989, the same remained unsettled in the earlier rounds of litigation (emerging out of the same Government order dated 9.8.1989), presumably because none of the retired employees fell within the classes of pensioners included in the present litigation. The employees herein are those who retired on or after 1.6.1988. By the impugned Government order dated 9.8.1989, pensionary benefits of an employee retired/retiring on or after 1.6.1988 were required to be computed by adding ‘dearness allowance’ to ‘dearness pay’ at a fixed percentage. By virtue of the aforesaid determination, employees retiring on or after 1.6.1988 would be at a disadvantage, as against the employees who had retired prior thereto. 21. The afore-stated challenge to the impugned Government order dated 9.8.1989 was raised before the Administrative Tribunal through an Original Application (O.A. no. 5771 of 2001) by an Association of retired Government employees. The aforesaid Original Application came to be transferred to the High Court, wherein it was renumbered as Writ Petition (T) no. 32045 of 2005. A learned Single Judge of the High Court allowed 2 Page 21 the aforesaid Writ Petition on 20.4.2006. The learned Single Judge held, that the State Government, in not extending benefits to members of the appellant Association, had discriminated against them. The impugned Government order dated 9.8.1989, to the extent that it did not confer the same benefits (based on the component of ‘dearness allowance’ treated as ‘dearness pay’), for employees who retired on or after 1.6.1988, was held as unsustainable. Writ Petition (T) no. 32045 of 2005 was accordingly allowed. 22. Dissatisfied with the order dated 20.4.2006 passed by the learned Single Judge, allowing Writ Petition (T) no. 32045 of 2005, the State Government preferred a Writ Appeal before a Division Bench of the High Court. The aforesaid Writ Appeal, alongwith writ petitions filed before the High Court on the same subject, were taken up for collective adjudication. By an order dated 17.12.2007, Writ Appeal no. 1002 of 2006 was allowed. The order dated 20.4.2006, passed by the learned Single Judge (allowing the claim of the employees who had retired on or after 1.6.1988), was set aside. All writ petitions filed by retired employees on the same subject matter which were taken up for disposal alongwith the Writ Appeal referred to above, were simultaneously dismissed. Through the instant Civil Appeals, different employees’ associations, as also employees (singularly and collectively), have assailed the order passed on 17.12.2007 by the Division Bench of the High Court, allowing Writ Appeal no. 1002 of 2006 (and connected appeals); and dismissing the writ petitions preferred by employees (and employees’ associations) taken up for collective disposal, alongwith the aforesaid Writ Appeal (no. 1002 of 2006). 2 Page 22 23. During the course of hearing, learned counsel representing the appellants, first and foremost, vehemently contended, on the basis of the legal and the factual position noticed above, that the benefit of ‘dearness allowance’ as ‘dearness pay’ has always equally been extended to all the pensioners, irrespective of the date of their retirement. It was further contended, that as and when there was discrimination on the above subject, the same was suitably remedied by the State Government, by amending/modifying the earlier Government orders. It was submitted, that a similar discrimination emanating out of the same Government order dated 9.8.1989, pertaining to a set of employees differently classified, was corrected through judicial intervention (details already noticed above). During the aforesaid course of repeated adjudication, on the subject under consideration, the matter once came up to this Court, when Special Leave Petition (Civil) no. 23643 of 1996, filed before this Court by the State Government, was dismissed. Even a review petition filed before this Court, by the State Government thereafter, admittedly met the same fate. It was accordingly submitted, that the same principle which was made applicable to different sections of pensioners, under the same Government order dated 9.8.1989, should be extended to the instant class of retired Government employees i.e., those who retired on or after 1.6.1988. 24. Besides the aforesaid legal premise, for assailing the impugned Government order dated 9.8.1989, learned counsel representing the appellants, invited our pointed attention to a compilation enclosed by the Retired Officers’ Association (in Civil Appeal no. 8856 of 2012). The said compilation was relied upon to demonstrate to us, the extent of discrimination caused to the appellants (who retired on or after 1.6.1988). 2 Page 23 For this reason various hypothetical situations were illustratively placed before us, for our consideration. In each such hypothetical illustration, the appellants took into consideration the same number of years of service rendered, against the same post, wherein the pensioner had also retired at the same component of last pay drawn. Therefrom, it was sought to be established, that employees who had retired on or after 1.6.1988 would be at a substantial disadvantage. Illustratively, for the adjudication of the present controversy, a hypothetical situation relating to an employee holding the post of Deputy Collector is being placed below: ‘ A ’ Cadre taken : Deputy Collector Date of retirement : 30.04.1988 Net qualifying service : 33 years Scale of Pay : 1340-75—1715—90—2435 Pay last drawn : Rs. 2435/- Average Emoluments : Rs. 2435/- Original Pension fixed : Rs. 1218/- Pension revised as per G.O. 449 : Rs. 1448/- Revision as per G.O. 810 As on 01.06.1988 : Rs. 1622/- Pension as per G.O. 271 : 1622/- Add: 50% increase : 811/- ------------- Total Pension 2433/- (With effect from 1.6.1988) (Pension as on 1.1.1966) : 2433/- Add: 111% : 2701/- Interim Relief-I 50/- Interim Relief –II : 244/- 40% Hike : 974/- ------------------------ Total Pension : 6402/- (With effect from 1.1.1996) xxx xxx xxx xxx ‘ B ’ Cadre taken : Deputy Collector 2 Page 24 Date of retirement : 30.06.1988 Net qualifying service : 33 years Scale of Pay : 2200-75—2800—100—4000 Average Emoluments : Rs. 2515/- + Add: 13% as per G.O. 810 : Rs. 327/- : Rs.2842/- Pension 50% : Rs.1421/- As on 1.1.96: Pension : Rs.1421/- Add 148% : 2104/- Interim relief-I : 50/- Interim relief-II : 143/- 40% Hike : 569/- ------------- Total Pension Rs.4287/- (With effect from 1.1.1996) xxx xxx xxx xxx ‘ C ’ Cadre taken : Deputy Collector Date of retirement : 30.06.1993 Net qualifying service : 33 years 10 months average emoluments : Rs.2725/- Add: 13% increase : Rs. 355/- : Rs.3080/- Pension fixed at 50% : Rs.1540/- Revised pension as on 1.1.1996 : Rs.1540/- Add Dearness Allowance 148% : 2280/- Interim relief-I : 50/- Interim relief-II : 154/- 40% Hike : 616/- ------------- Total Pension Rs.4640/- (With effect from 1.1.1996) After narrating the computations made in the illustrations referred to above, it was submitted that it clearly emerged, that a person who had retired as a Deputy Collector on 30.4.1988 (before 1.6.1988) would get pension of Rs.6,402/-; while a Deputy Collector, who retired on 30.6.1988, would get 2 Page 25 Rs.4,287/-; and a Deputy Collector who retired on 30.6.1993, would get Rs.4,640/- as pension, all of them having the same 33 years of qualifying service, as well as, a similar last pay prior to their retirement. What is important is, that the figures referred to above were accepted in the response sought by the High Court from the Accountant General, Tamil Nadu. In the response from the Accountant General, Tamil Nadu, the only mistake found was the amount of pension depicted as Rs.6,402/- for a Deputy Collector (who retired prior to 1.6.1988). According to the Accountant General, Tamil Nadu, on a correct analysis, the said figure would be Rs.6,808/-. It is therefore apparent, that in identical circumstances, a Deputy Collector retiring prior to 1.6.1988 would draw pension at the monthly rate of Rs.6,808/-, whereas, a Deputy Collector retiring thereafter on 30.6.1988, would get a monthly pension of Rs.4,287/-. This would show that a person who retired from the same cadre before the crucial date i.e., 1.6.1988, would get about Rs.2,500/- per month more than the one who had retired from the same cadre after the said date. The aforesaid illustration has been highlighted by us, in order to determine the correctness of the following inferences drawn by the Division Bench of the High Court, while passing the impugned order dated 17.12.2007:- “Learned counsel for the parties circulated their respective calculations showing working sheet of pension as admissible to a class of employees, who retired prior to 1st June, 1988 in the unrevised scales of pay and those similarly situated and retired after 1st June, 1988 in the revised scales of pay. Charts are varying. While in the chart submitted by the State Government it has been shown that those who retired after 1 s t June, 1988 will be getting a little bit higher than those who retired prior to 1 s t June, 1988, the calculation submitted by individual parties shows that those who retired just prior to 1 s t June, 1988 may get a little higher emoluments than those who retired after 1 s t June, 1988 . It is for the said reason, we also sought for opinion from the Accountant General, Tamil Nadu, who has submitted its calculation chart, as circulated between the parties and quoted hereunder:- 2 Page 26 “As per instructions of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in W.P. 11634 of 2002, the working sheets submitted by both the Government and the petitioners in WA 1002 of 2006 have been scrutinized and the following observations are made:- A. Government Working Sheet: Details of the case As it is As it should be Designation: Tahsildar Date of Retirement: 31.5.1988 Scale of Pay: Rs.1160-50-1460-70-1950 Pay Rs.1880 Rs.1387 Rs.1573 Designation: Tahsildar Date of Retirement: after 1.6.1988 Scale of Pay: Rs.2000-60-2300-75-3200 Pay Rs.2300 Rs.1534 Rs.1534 1/579 revision is applied in this case, then the revised pension from 1.6.88 works out to Rs.2000 + 18% D.A. B. Petitioner Working Sheet: Out of nine illustrations, five cases are found to be correct and in four cases, the correct calculations are given below:- Details of the case As it is As it should be Designation: Deputy Collector (‘A’) Date of Retirement: 30.4.1988 Scale of Pay: Rs.1340-75-1715-90- 2435 Pay Rs.2435 Rs.2433 (from 1.6.88) Rs.6402 (from 1.1.96) Rs.2589 (from 1.6.88) Rs.6808 (from 1.1.96) Designation: Block Development Officer (‘A’) Date of Retirement: 31.1.1988 Scale of Pay: Rs.1045-45-1450-65- 1675 Pay Rs.1515 Rs.849 (from 1.2.88) Rs.1427 (from 1.6.88) Rs.4303 (from 1.1.96) Rs.947 (from 1.2.88) Rs.1592 (from 1.6.88) Rs.4796 (from 1.1.96) Designation: Secondary Grade Teacher (‘A’) (Sel. Grade) Rs.472 (from 1.1.88) Rs.815 (from 1.6.88) Rs.513 (from 1.1.88) Rs.890 (from 1.6.88) 2 Page 27 Date of Retirement: 31.12.1987 Scale of Pay: Rs. Pay Rs.820 Rs.2480 (from 1.1.96) Rs.2790 (from 1.1.96) Designation: Tahsildar Date of Retirement: 31.3.1990 Scale of Pay: Rs.1160-50-1460-70- 1950 Pay Rs.2180 from 1.1.90 Rs.1232 (from 1.4.90) Rs.3723 (from 1.1.96) Rs.1209 (from 1.4.90) Rs.3654 (from 1.1.96) It is certified that subject to the observations made supra the illustrative calculations are in order. Branch Officer/Pension 30” From the aforesaid chart it appears that those who retired prior to 1 s t June, 1988 or after 30 th June, 1988 from similar post, they wil l get almost similar quantum of pension. (emphasis is ours) 25. Learned counsel for the appellants pointed out, that the determination by the High Court to the effect, that employees who had retired prior to 1.6.1988 from a similar post, would “…get a little higher…” pensionary emoluments, than those who retired afterwards, was clearly preposterous. Learned counsel for the appellants, while referring to the illustration narrated above, also invited our attention to the affidavit dated 15.12.2011 (filed by the first respondent in Civil Appeal no.8856 of 2012), wherein the position canvassed at the behest of the appellants was considered. According to the acknowledged position, the first respondent (in the affidavit dated 15.12.2011), on proper calculations asserted, that in identical circumstances, a Deputy Collector retiring prior to 1.6.1988 would draw pension at a monthly rate of Rs.6,808/-, whereas, a Deputy Collector retiring after 30.6.1988 would get a monthly pension of Rs.4,287/-. This would show, that merely on account of the accident of retiring before or 2 Page 28 after 1.6.1988, one of the pensioners would draw pension at the rate of about Rs.2,500/- per month more than the other. We are satisfied, that the illustration referred to hereinabove, clearly negates the conclusion drawn by the Division Bench of the High Court in the impugned order dated 17.12.2007, to the effect, that retirees prior to 1.6.1988 from a similar post would “…get a little higher” pensionary emoluments. 26. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the controversy in hand. First and foremost, it needs to be understood that the quantum of discrimination, is irrelevant to a challenge based on a plea of arbitrariness, under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Article 14 of the Constitution of India ensures to all, equality before the law and equal protection of the laws. The question is of arbitrariness and discrimination. These rights flow to an individual under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The extent of benefit or loss in such a determination is irrelevant and inconsequential. The extent to which a benefit or loss actually affects the person concerned, cannot ever be a valid justification for a court in either granting or denying the claim raised on these counts. The rejection of the claim of the appellants by the High Court, merely on account of the belief that the carry home pension for employees who would retire after 1.6.1988, would be trivially lower than those retiring prior thereto, amounts to bagging the issue pressed before the High Court. The solitary instance referred to above, which is not a matter of dispute even at the hands of the first respondent, clearly demonstrates, that in a given situation, an employee retiring on or after 1.6.1988 could suffer a substantial loss, in comparison to an employee retiring before 1.6.1988. We are, therefore satisfied, that the High Court clearly erred while determining the issue projected before it. 2 Page 29 27. At this juncture it is also necessary to examine the concept of valid classification. A valid classification is truly a valid discrimination. Article 16 of the Constitution of India permits a valid classification (see, State of Kerala vs. N.M. Thomas (1976) 2 SCC 310). A valid classification is based on a just objective. The result to be achieved by the just objective presupposes, the choice of some for differential consideration/treatment, over others. A classification to be valid must necessarily satisfy two tests. Firstly, the distinguishing rationale has to be based on a just objective. And secondly, the choice of differentiating one set of persons from another, must have a reasonable nexus to the objective sought to be achieved. Legalistically, the test for a valid classification may be summarized as, a distinction based on a classification founded on an intelligible differentia, which has a rational relationship with the object sought to be achieved. Whenever a cut off date (as in the present controversy) is fixed to categorise one set of pensioners for favourable consideration over others, the twin test for valid classification (or valid discrimination) must necessarily be satisfied. In the context of the instant appeals, it is necessary to understand the overall objective of treating “dearness allowance” (or a part of it) as “dearness pay”. There can be no doubt, that ‘dearness allowance’ is extended to employees to balance the effects of ongoing inflation, so as to ensure that inflation does not interfere with the enjoyment of life, to which an employee is accustomed. Likewise, the objective of ‘dearness pay’ is to balance the effects of ongoing inflation, so that a pensioner can adequately sustain the means of livelihood to which he is accustomed . Having understood the reason why the Government extends the benefit of ‘dearness allowance’ and ‘dearness pay’, to its 2 Page 30 employees and pensioners respectively, we would venture to search for answers to the twin tests which must be satisfied, for making a valid classification (or a valid discrimination), in the present fact situation. 28. In the present context, it needs to be kept in mind, that ‘dearness allowance’ is paid to Government employees keeping in mind the All India Consumer Price Index. Inflation in the market place is sought to be balanced by paying ‘dearness allowance’ to Government employees. When a State Government chooses to treat ‘dearness allowance’ as ‘dearness pay’, the objective remains the same i.e., inflation in the market place is sought to be balanced for retired employees by giving them the benefit of ‘dearness pay’. Since the component of inflation similarly affects all employees, and all pensioners (irrespective of the date of their entry into service or retirement), it is not per se possible to accept different levels of ‘dearness pay’ to remedy the malady of inflation. Just like the date of entry into service (for serving employees) would be wholly irrelevant to determine the ‘dearness allowance’ to be extended to serving employees, because the same has no relevance to the object sought to be achieved. Likewise, the date of retirement (for pensioners) would be wholly irrelevant to determine the ‘dearness pay’ to be extended to retired employees. Truthfully, it may be difficult to imagine a valid basis of classification for remedying the malaise of inflation. In the absence of any objective, projected in this case, the question of examining the reasonableness to the object sought to be achieved, simply does not arise. Our straying into this expressed realm of imagination, was occasioned by the fact, that the pleadings filed on behalf of the State Government, do not reveal any reason for the classification, which is subject matter of challenge in the 3 Page 31 instant appeal. The only position adopted in the pleadings filed before this Court for introducing a cut off date for differential treatment, is expressed in paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit, filed by the State of Tamil Nadu, which is being extracted herewith:.- “With reference to the averments made in the Grounds of the Special Leave Petition, I submit that the fifth Pay Commission has revised pay and pension with effect from 1.6.1988. As per the recommendation of the above Pay Commission, the Government had issued orders for the revision of pension and Family Pension with effect from 1.6.1988 in G.O.Ms. No. 810. Finance (PC) Department, dated 9.8.1989. It is submitted that the fourth Tamil Nadu Pay Commission has recommended that at the end of the period of three years, the Dearness Allowance sanctioned upto that period could be treated as Dearness Pay. The Fourth Pay Commission revision was given with effect from 1.10.1984. Based on the above recommendation, the Government has issued orders in G.O.Ms. No.371, Finance, dated 30.4.1986, read with Government letter No.124414/Pension/86-1, dt. 11.2.1987, that the Dearness Allowance sanctioned upto 30.9.1987 shall be treated as Dearness Pay for the purpose of pensionary benefit in the case of the Govt. Servant retiring on or after 1.10.1987. The orders issued in G.O.Ms. 371, Finance dated 30.4.1985 as amended in Government letter No.70707-A/Pension /86-1, dated 8.7. 1986 read as follows:- “The Fourth Tamil Nadu Pay Commission have among other things recommended that at the end of a period of three years the Dearness Allowance sanctioned upto the period could be treated as Dearness Pay in order to ensure a reasonable pension level. The Government accept the recommendation of the Commission and direct that in the case of Government servant, who will be retiring on or after 1.10.1987, the Dearness Allowance sanctioned upto 1.10.1987 shall be reckoned as Dearness Pay for purpose of pension in the case of death of a Government servant occurring on or after 1.10.1987 while in service the Dearness Allowance sanctioned upto 1.10.1987 shall be treated as Dearness Pay for the purpose of computing Family Pension.” It is therefore, evident, that the State Government has not disclosed any object which is desired to achieve by the cut off date. Most importantly, the financial constraints of the State Government, were not described as the basis/reason for the classification made in the imputgned Government order dated 9.8.1989. 3 Page 32 29. The issue in hand needs to examine from another perspective as well. It must be clearly understood, that no employee has a right to draw ‘dearness allowance’ as ‘dearness pay’ till such time as the State Government decides to treat ‘dearness allowance’ as ‘dearness pay’. And therefore, the State Government has the right to choose whether or not ‘dearness allowance’ should be treated as ‘dearness pay’. As such, it is open to the State Government not to treat any part of ‘dearness allowance’ as ‘dearness pay’. In case of financial constraints, this would be the most appropriate course to be adopted. Likewise, the State Government has the right to choose how much of ‘dearness allowance’ should be treated as ‘dearness pay’. As such, it is open to the State Government to treat a fraction, or even the whole of ‘dearness allowance’ as ‘dearness pay’. Based on Rule 30 of the Pension Rules, it is clear that the component of ‘dearness pay’ would be added to emoluments of an employee for calculating pension. In a situation where the State Government has chosen, that a particular component of ‘dearness allowance’ would be treated as ‘dearness pay’, it cannot discriminate between one set of pensioners and another, while calculating the pension payable to them (for the reasons expressed in the preceding paragraph). Of course, a valid classification may justify such an action. In this case, the State Government has not come out with any justification/basis for the classification whereby one set of pensioners has been distinguished from others for differential treatment. 30. The instant controversy should not be misunderstood as a determination of the total carry home pension of an employee. All the Government orders referred to above, deal with the quantum of ‘dearness 3 Page 33 allowance’ to be treated as ‘dearness pay’ for the calculation of pension. ‘Dearness pay’ is one of the many components, which go into the eventual determination of pension. Therefore, the focus in the adjudication of the present controversy must be on ‘dearness pay’, rather than on the eventual carry home pension. The relevance and purpose of treating ‘dearness allowance’ as ‘dearness pay’, has been brought out in the foregoing paragraphs. Therefore, clearly, the object sought to be achieved by adding ‘dearness pay’ to the wage of a retiree, while determining pension payable to him, is to remedy the adverse effects of inflation. The aforesaid object has to be necessarily kept in mind, while examining the present controversy. Any classification without reference to the object sought to be achieved, would be arbitrary and violative of the protection afforded under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, it would also be discriminatory and violative of the protection afforded under Article 16 of the Constitution of India. 31. Having given our thoughtful consideration to the controversy in hand, it is not possible for us to find a valid justification for the State Government to have classified pensioners similarly situated as the appellants herein (who had retired after 1.6.1988), from those who had retired prior thereto. Inflation, in case of all such pensioners, whether retired prior to 1.6.1988 or thereafter, would have had the same effect on all of them. The purpose of adding the component of ‘dearness pay’ to wages for calculating pension is to offset the effect of inflation. In our considered view, therefore, the instant classification made by the State Government in the impugned Government order dated 9.8.1989 placing employees who had retired after 1.6.1988 at a disadvantage, vis-à-vis the employees who retired prior thereto, by 3 Page 34 allowing them a lower component of ‘dearness pay’, is clearly arbitrary and discriminatory, and as such, is liable to be set aside, as violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 32. It is also imperative for us to take into consideration, a few judgments rendered by this Court, which were brought to our notice by the learned counsel representing the State Government. Reliance was placed on three judgments to substantiate the submissions advanced on behalf of the respondents. (i) First of all, reliance was placed on the decision rendered by this Court in Union of India Vs. P.N. Menon,. (1994) 4 SCC 68. Facts in the first cited judgment reveal, that a recommendation was made by the Third Pay Commission to the State Government, suggesting review of the existing wage position, based on unprecedented inflation. The State Government was asked (by the Third Pay Commission) to take a decision on whether the dearness allowance scheme should be extended further; or in the alternative pay-scales themselves should be revised. This suggestion of the Third Pay Commission was based on the fact, that the price level index had arisen above the 12 monthly average to 272. Having considered the matter, the State Government decided to extend the dearness allowance scheme. It simultaneously issued an Office Memorandum, (hereinafter referred to as ‘O.M.’) whereby, a portion of ‘dearness allowance’ was to be treated as pay for computation of retiral benefits. The benefit of the aforesaid O.M. was extended only to those employees who had/would retire on or after 30.9.1977. The aforesaid O.M, also contemplated, that persons who had/would retire on or after 30.9.1977 but not later than 30.04.1979 would be allowed to exercise an option, to choose one out of 3 Page 35 the two alternatives. They could either seek the benefit of death-cumretirement gratuity by excluding the element of ‘dearness allowance’, alternatively, they could seek the same, by including the element of ‘dearness allowance’. The issue which came up for adjudication before this Court was, whether the aforesaid O.M. was sustainable in law, as it did not extend equal benefits to all retirees, irrespective of the dates of their retirement. All the respondents had retired before 30.9.1997. While determining the aforesaid issue, this Court took into consideration inter alia the fact that the decision to merge a part of ‘dearness allowance’ with pay, was taken with reference to the price index level. This decision was taken on the recommendations of the Third Pay Commission. In the aforesaid view of the matter, and specially because, an option was given to employees who had retired between 30.09.1977 and 30.04.1979, to get their pension and (death-cum-retirement gratuity) calculated, by including or excluding the element on dearness pay, this Court ruled, that the State Government had adopted measures ensuring similar benefits to all. And that, there was no intention to create a class within a class. This Court felt that the classification, had a reasonable nexus with the price level index at 272, on 30.09.1977. This according to this Court was just and valid. The factual position, that needs to be highlighted, in so far as the first cited judgment i.e. in P.N. Menon’s case (supra) is that, the respondent employees had never been in receipt of dearness pay, when they retired from service, and therefore, the O.M. in question could not have been applied to them. This is how this Court examined the matter in the cited case. This Court also noticed, that prior to the O.M. in question, the pension scheme was contributory, and only with effect from 22.9.1977, the 3 Page 36 pension scheme was made non contributory. Since the respondent employees in the first cited case, were not in service at the time of introducing the same, they were held not eligible for the said benefit. (ii) Next, learned counsel relied upon the judgment in State of Rajasthan Vs. Amrit Lal Gandhi, (1997) 2 SCC 342. The facts, in the second cited judgment were, that originally teachers of the Jodhpur University were governed by contributory provident fund rules. There was no pension scheme applicable to them. In 1983, a committee constituted by the University Grants Commission, recommended the introduction of pensioncum- gratuity for university and college teachers. Thereupon, the Senate and Syndicate of the Jodhpur University resolved to introduce a pension scheme for university teachers. The resolution of the Syndicate and Senate also provided, that options would be sought from existing teachers, so as to enable them, to choose whether they should be governed by the contributory provident fund rules, or would like to accept the benefits under the pension scheme. As the recommendation of the Syndicate and the Senate, of the Jodhpur University had financial implications, approval of the State Government was imperative. On examining the recommendations, the State Government decided to introduce the pension scheme with effect from 1.1.1990. Based thereon, the Syndicate and the Senate passed a concurring resolution expressing, that the pension scheme would become operational with effect from 1.1.1990. Based thereon, those teachers who were in the service of the Jodhpur University on or after 1.1.1990, were required to submit their options. The question which arose for consideration in the second cited judgment was, whether employees who had retired before 1.1.1990, had a similar right to claim pension, as was 3 Page 37 being extended to employees, who had/would retire on or after 1.1.1990. The High Court partly accepted the plea of the retirees by holding, that the pension scheme should be extended to employees who had retired on or after 1.1.1986. This Court did not approve the decision rendered by the High Court. This Court noticed, that the approval of the resolutions of the Syndicate and Senate of the Jodhpur University had been accorded by the State Government after the State Legislature had passed the University Pension Rules, and the General Provident Fund Rules. This Court also noticed, that the State Government in its affidavit had taken an express stand, that the introduction of the pension scheme was economically viable only with effect from 1.1.1990. In other words, the State Government could bear the financial burden of the pension scheme, only if it was introduced with effect from 1.1.1990. Based on the aforesaid position adopted by the State Government, this Court concluded, that the determination of the State Government in introducing the pension scheme for employees, who had retired with effect from 1.1.1990 had not been fixed arbitrarily or without any valid reason/basis. This Court accordingly, set aside the judgment rendered by the High Court. (iii) Finally, learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment rendered by this Court in State of Punjab Vs. Amar Nath Goel, (2005)6 SCC 754. In the third cited case, employees both of the Central Government, as also, of the State Governments of Punjab and Himachal Pradesh, who had retired prior to 1.4.1995 sought death cum-retirement gratuity, up to the increased limit of Rs. 2.5 lakhs. The claim raised by the employees was rejected in some cases, whereas in some other cases the Central Administrative Tribunal and the High Court took the view, that the benefit of increased quantum 3 Page 38 of death-cum-retirement gratuity, should be extended to employees, who had retired between 1.7.1993 and 31.3.1995 as well. Having examined the aforesaid controversy, this Court arrived at the conclusion, that the decision of the Central Government and State Governments to limit the benefit only to employees, who had retired ( or died) on or after 1.4.1995, was based on a concrete determination of financial implications, as such, it was held that the cut off date (1.4.1995) was neither arbitrary nor irrational, as alleged. Consequently, the plea advanced at the hands of the employees assailing the cut off date as arbitrary, and by alleging that it was not based on any rational criteria, was rejected. 33. We have considered the submissions urged at the hands of the learned counsel for the respondent, based on the judgments cited at the bar. In our view, none of the judgments relied upon is relevant to the present controversy. (i) In so far as P.N. Menon’s case (supra) is concerned, having examined the controversy. this Court arrived at the conclusion, that the State Government adopted measures which would ensure, similar benefits to all. This court also expressed the view, that there was no intention of the State Government, to create any class within a class. The price level index at 272 on 30.9.1977 was the determining factor for the State Government’s decision. It was accordingly concluded, that there was a valid and reasonable nexus to the object sought to be achieved. But most importantly this Court felt, that the decision of the State Government in not extending benefits to the respondents was based on the fact, that they were not in receipt of the any ‘dearness pay’ at the time of their retirement. Moreover, since the family pension scheme was contributory when the 3 Page 39 respondents had retired, the respondents could not justifiably seek the benefits, which were available only to the retirees after the pension scheme was made non contributory. There is, therefore no co-relation of the first cited judgment with the controversy in hand. (ii) In Amrit Lal Gandhi’s case (supra) pension was introduced for the first time for university teachers based on resolutions passed by the Syndicate and the Senate of the Jodhpur University. The same were approved by the State Government with effect from 1.1.1990. The instant controversy is, therefore, not between one set of pensioners alleging discriminatory treatment, as against another set of pensioners. There were no pensioners, to begin with. Retirees were entitled to provident fund under the existing Provident Fund Scheme. The question of discrimination of one set of pensioners from another set of pensioners, therefore, did not arise in the second cited judgment. Financial viability was, as such, a relevant issue. The State Government adopted the stance, that the introduction of the pension scheme was financially viable only if the scheme was introduced with effect from 1.1.1990. The cut off date clearly disclosed a classification founded on an intelligible differentia, which had a rational relationship with the object sought to be achieved. There is therefore, in our view, no correlation of the second cited judgment with the controversy in hand. (iii) In so far as the third cited judgment is concerned, this Court in Amrit Lal Gandhi’s case (supra) examined an issue where, the increased deathcum- retirement gratuity could only be claimed by employees, who had retired after the cut off date (1.4.1995). Death-cum-retirement gratuity is a one time benefit, whereas, pension enures to retired employees for the 3 Page 40 entire length of their lives. Pension is therefore a continuing benefit. Death-cum-retirement gratuity, is a one time benefit, disbursed in accordance with to the rules prevalent at the time (of retirement). Herein also, the issue under consideration was not different measures for computing, a continuing retiral benefit, based on any cut off date. We are therefore of the view, that the instant judgment is also not relevant for the adjudication of the controversy in hand. In view of the above, we are satisfied, that none of judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents, have any bearing to controversy in hand. 34. The instant appeals are accordingly allowed. The impugned order dated 17.12.2007 passed by the High Court is hereby set aside. The impugned Government Order dated 9.8.1989, to the extent that it extends to employees who retire on or after 1.6.1988, a lower component of ‘dearness pay’, as against those who had retired prior to 1.6.1988, is set aside, being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. …………………………….J. (D.K. Jain) …………………………….J. (Jagdish Singh Khehar) New Delhi; January 17, 2013. 4

Revision Of Pension for pre-1996-2006

MINIMUM REVISED BASIC PENSION OF PRE-2006 PENSIONERS W.E.F. 24-9-2012 AS PER DOP OM DATED 28-1-2013 Existing Pay Scales and Revised Pay Structure as pr Sixth CPC Pay structure & Pension as per accepted Recommendations Consoli - dated pension with 40% Fitment Benefit (vide Para 4.1 of DOP OM of 1-9-08) i.e. 2.26 X B.P Pen-sion fixed (as per DOP OM Dt 3/10/08 (By misinterpr eting accep-ted recommendations of SCPC) Difference Basic Pen -sion (Col.7 Minus Col. 8 or 9 whichever is higher) Existing Pay Scales as per 5th CPC (BP) SCPC Pay Band Revised Pay Structure (Pay Band + Grade Pay) Pay in the Pay Band (corresp onding to minimum of Pre- Revised pay scale) Grade Pay (GP) Revised Basic Pay (Col. 4+ Col 5) MINIMUM REVISED BASIC PENSION of Pre-2006 Pensioners (50 % of Col 6 ) W.e.f. 24-9-2012 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 S-4(2750-4400) PB-1 5200-20200+1800 5530 1800 7330 3665 3500 3500 165 S-5(3050-4590) PB-1 5200-20200+1900 5880 1900 7780 3890 3500 3550 340 S-6(3200-4900) PB-1 5200-20200+2000 6060 2000 8060 4030 3616 3600 414 S-7(4000-6000) PB-1 5200-20200+2400 7440 2400 9840 4920 4520 3800 400 S-8(4500-7000) PB-1 5200-20200+2800 8370 2800 11170 5585 5085 4000 500 S-9 (5000-8000) PB-2 9300-34800+4200 9300 4200 13500 6750 5650 6750 0 S-10 (5500- 9000) PB-2 9300-34800+4200 10230 4200 14430 7215 6215 6750 465 S-11(6500- 6900) PB-2 9300-34800+4200 12090 4200 16290 8145 7345 6750 800 S12((6500- 10500) PB-2 9300-34800+4200 12090 4200 16290 8145 7345 6750 800 S-13 (7450- 11500) PB-2 9300-34800+4600 13860 4600 18460 9230 8419 6950 811 S-14 (7500- 12000) PB-2 9300-34800+4800 13950 4800 18750 9375 8475 7050 900 S-15 (8000- 13500) PB-2 9300-34800+5400 14880 5400 20280 10140 9040 7350 1100 New scale-GrA PB-3 15600-39100+5400 15600 5400 21000 10500 9040 10500 0 S-16,(9000) PB-3 15600-39100+5400 16740 5400 22140 11070 10170 10500 570 S-17(9000- 9550) PB-3 15600-39100+5400 16740 5400 22140 11070 10170 10500 570 S-18 (10325- 10975) PB-3 15600-39100+6600 19210 6600 25810 12905 11666 11100 1239 S-19 (10000- 15200) PB-3 15600-39100+6600 18600 6600 25200 12600 11300 11100 1300 S-20 10650- 15850) PB-3 15600-39100+6600 19810 6600 26410 13205 12035 11100 1170 S-21(12000- 16500) PB-3 15600-39100+7600 22320 7600 29920 14960 13560 11600 1400 S-22 (12750- 16500) PB-3 15600-39100+7600 23720 7600 31320 15660 14408 11600 1252 S-23 (12000- 18000) PB-3 15600-39100+7600 22320 7600 29920 14960 13560 11600 1400 S-24 (14300- 18300) PB-4 37400-67000+8700 37400 8700 46100 23050 16159 23050 0 S-25 (15100- 18300) PB-4 37400-67000+8700 39690 8700 48390 24195 17063 23050 1145 S-26 (16400- 20000) PB-4 37400-67000+8900 39690 8900 48590 24295 18532 23150 1145 S-27(16400- 20900) PB-4 37400-67000+8900 39690 8900 48590 24295 18532 23150 1145 S-28 (14300- 22400) PB-4 37400-67000+10000 37400 10000 47400 23700 16159 23700 0 S-29 (18400- 22400) PB-4 44700 10000 54700 27350 20792 23700 3650 1. Consolidated pension figure in col. 8 is for basic pension (B.P.) based on the minimum pay of pre revised scale. 2. Those whose Revised Pension has been fixed higher than Col 7, shall not be affected by these orders - (Compiled by : N. P. Mohan, President RSCWS, Ex CE WR)

Saturday, January 19, 2013

Fitment Table

Thursday, January 17, 2013 Much awaited OM from MOD on pension based on fitment table is issued and is effective from 24-9-2012.Courtesy- Maj Navdeep Singh (Retd) (Updated) Committee of Secretaries Report, as approved by the Cabinet, implemented. Letters issued today. Click here to read orders The below mentioned letters have been issued today by the Ministry of Defence to improve the pensionary benefits of defence personnel in pursuance to the report submitted by the Committee of Secretaries as approved by the Cabinet. The financial benefit of all these letters has been provided from 24 September 2012. 1. Improvement in pension of pre-2006 released Honorary Officers, JCOs and other ranks: Pensionary weightages have been increased for Sepoy, Naik and Havildar to 12, 10 and 8 years respectively. The pensions of Honorary commissioned officers have also been increased. Fresh tables have been notified. The letter can be downloaded by clicking here. 2. Increase in pension and family pension in case of commissioned officers: The pension and family pension of commissioned officer retirees has been enhanced based on the minimum of the fitment table (+ Grade Pay + Military Service Pay) rather than the pay band itself. Fresh tables have been notified too. The letter can be downloaded by clicking here. 3. Increase in family pension of post-2006 and also pre-2006 JCOs and other ranks: Changes have been incorporated in the family pensionary modalities of both pre as well as post2006 cases. The pre-2006 letter can be accessed by clicking here and the post-2006 letter can be accessed here. 4. Improvement in Casualty Pensionary Awards for pre-2006 commissioned officers, JCOs and other ranks:Minimum guaranteed Special Family Pension, Liberalized Family Pension, Dependant Pension (Special) and Second Life Awards shall now be determined on the basis of the minimum of fitment table for each rank as per the applicable Special Army/Navy/Air Force Instructions (+ Grade Pay + Military Service Pay + X Group Pay if applicable) rather than the minimum of the pay band itself.The letter can be downloaded by clicking here. 5. Improvement in Casualty Pensionary Awards for post-2006 JCOs and other ranks: Modalities of some casualty pensionary awards of post-2006 cases of JCOs and other ranks have also been changed. The letter can be downloaded by clicking here. 6. Improvement in pensionary benefits of post-2006 released JCOs and other ranks: Weightages of pension for the ranks of Sepoy, Naik and Havildar increased to 12, 10 and 8 years and notionally been made applicable to post-2006 retirees also. Ordinary family pension also increased in the case of post-2006 JCOs and other ranks. The letter can be downloaded by clicking here. 7. Provisions of Dual Family Pension and Family Pension for life for handicapped family pensioners even in case of re-marriage: Letter for eligibility of dual family pension in case of families of pensioners who were drawing two pensions or were eligible to draw two pensions, and also letter clarifying the eligibility of a handicapped family pensioner even in case of remarriage also issued. It however may be pointed out that both these benefits had already been granted by Hon’ble Courts in the past. For instance, this decision of the Principal Bench of the Armed Forces Tribunal, and this one of the Chennai Bench may be perused. While the Courts have granted these benefits from the date of eligibility, the letters issued carry financial benefits only from 24 September 2012. Other letters, as soon as they are made available, shall be posted on the blog. At the outset, it may be pointed out that many of the provisions incorporated are utterly confusing and chaotic, and it is duly hoped that the offices of the CGDA and PCDA(P) clarify the implementation modalities by way of detailed circulars. Any doubts or clarifications on the above may NOT please be directed towards me through email or phone and should be simply posted on the comments section of this blogpost.

Monday, January 7, 2013

4th National Conference Of The Rly Pensioner.

4th National Conference of the Railway Pensioner will be held on 9th February,2013 at Nagpur,Delegation Fee Rs.200/-per person. FOR ACCOMODATION AND OTHER INFORMATION. CONTACT to:- J.N.Rao- Vice President (West), Bharat Pensioner Samaj Phone-0712 265 2335 Mobile-09421703511 Emal-jnrao36@rediffmail.com

Saturday, December 15, 2012

Next date of Court Case at NewDelhi

Appeal of the GOI in W.P. No. 1535/2012 - (against CAT Judgment) in the Case for Modified Parity for Pre-2006 Pensioners - in the Delhi High Court - could not be taken up for hearing on 29.11.2012 , as one of the judges of the Bench Justice Siddharth Mridul was on leave The matter has been adjourned. The next date of hearing is fixed as 29.04.2013

Wednesday, September 26, 2012

New Delhi: In what can be termed good news for ex-armed forces personnel, the Cabinet on Monday approved a pension plan of Rs 23,00 crore under the ‘One Rank One Pension’ scheme. Services personnel who have retired before January 2006, will now be entitled to pension almost equal to their counterparts who superannuated after this date. The estimated cost of this proposal will be approx Rs 2,300 crore per annum. The Armed forces have been agitating for One Rank One Pension scheme for quite some time now. As per the bonanza scheme, every ex-serviceman will be eligible for the same pension at his rank, regardless of when he joined or retired. The ‘One Rank One Pension’ was a demand of 1.3-million strong defence personnel which got partly approved today based on the recommendations of a panel set up by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. The slew of measures taken by the Government to increase pension and pay of the armed forces included enhancement of family pension, granting of dual family pension and family pension to mentally and physically challenged wards of defence personnel even after their marriage, officials said here. An official release said steps taken by the Government are expected to largely "meet the demands of the defence pensioners for one rank one pension (OROP)." The committee, headed by Cabinet Secretary Ajit Seth had submitted its report on August 08, 2012. Set up on July 13 this year on the orders of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, the committee had Principal Secretary to the Prime Minister Pulok Chatterjee and Defence Secretary Shashi Kant Sharma as members, apart from secretaries of departments of expenditure, ex-servicemen's welfare, and personnel and training. "The gap in pension of pre- and post-January 2006 retiree jawans will be bridged by determining the pension of pre- January 2006 pensioners on the basis of notional maximum for the ranks and groups across the three Services as in case of post-January 2006 retirees," the official release said. "The pension of pre-January 2006 commissioned officer pensioners will be stepped up with reference to maximum fitment table for the ranks instead of minimum pay band," it said. The decision would be implemented from a prospective date, Defence Ministry officials said. As per the present system, personnel retiring under the 6th pay commission get more pension than their counterparts who have retired under previous pay commissions. The Cabinet also accepted the enhancement of family pension for the families of serving and retired defence personnel who have lost their lives. "The pension of pre-January 2006 family pensioners including officers, Junior Commissioned Officers and other ranks will be stepped up based on the minimum of the fitment table instead of the minimum pay band," the release said. The government also allowed the Dual Family Pension which means that the pensioner would be allowed to draw both military and civil employment pensions. It also agreed to the demand of granting family pension to mentally and physically challenged children of defence forces personnel even after their marriage. This pension was so far granted to them only till their marriage. Commenting on the virtual acceptance of the OROP demand, former Army Chief Gen VK Singh said, "They have done a lot for the good of the veterans community. They should have done it long back as it was long overdue." Meanwhile, the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) is expected to have discussed a proposal to set up a training academy of the Coast Guard in Kerala and an IAF proposal for procuring equipment for their aircraft. With PTI inputs For Zee News’s Updates, follow us on Twitter , Facebook, Google+, Pinterest First Published: Monday, September 24, 2012, 21:03 Post your Comments Name: Place : Email : Comments : Comments Devi Dutt Sharma - Panchkula Thanks for all ESM who fought for this suprime work. Thanks a lot. Reply Ex. Petty Officer R.U.Barbhuiya - Shillong It seems to be lollypop, lets wait and watch the actual outcome. However, thanks to Mr.PM and his team. Reply Ex-Sgt NS Choudhary - Shimla The news has been wrongly published as well as highlighted. We have nothing joyous when we go through the nitty gritty detaila of proposal.In fact, we won`t get our due till the IAS bureaucrats are nominated to decide our fate. These bureaucrats have no stake in armed forces and they see it as futile expenditure except in times of war. A paltry enhancement of sum of Rs. 400 for Havildars and equivalent is like slap on our face. So pals continue to fight till end. If PM is so sincere in his efforts just let him avoid one scam of UPA Government and give the amount for OROP. Reply Ex-Sgt SHIB NATH CHAKRABORTY 642650-K - KOLKATA LONG LIVE Mr PM &HIS ENTIRE TEAM.THANKS. Reply BRIG HS BRAR - chandigarh gOOD NEWS, THOUGH LATE. Reply Ex.Sgt Amardas udasi - indore OROP announce is not what OROP is supposed to be.please wait and watch ,what practically you are going to get..you all will come out of dream after few days.Be prepared to fight back. Reply Ex JWO U C PATRA - LUCKNOW IT IS A GREAT SURPRISE OF RELEASING A LONG PENDING DEMAND OF EX SERVICEMEN. THANKS. Reply Ex-Sgt Deepak Pandya,Indian Air Force - Vadodara,Gujarat. Sir, It is really a long pending task completed in very appropriate time of Ganeshostav time,forthcoming festivals like Dussera and Diwali ,hope the amount is credited in our account before Dewali atleast.I thank to the Central Govt. for thinking sensibly and implementing in right occassion.All Ex-Servicemen are in cheer mood after getting this news,Yesterday. Thanks and Regards, Reply Didar Singh Kalsi, Ex Sgt - Chandigarh Congratulations to all EXS.Happy ending! Reply William George, Ex CPL - Kanpur My heartiest thanks to the present Govt and its committee members for fulfilling the long awaited demands of lakhs of Ex-servicemen and Congratulations to all who would be benefited by this Festive Bonanza of 2012.. Reply Pages:123456 Most liked Comments colonel s n jha retd - patna DEAR SIR . MAY I REQUEST YOU TO KINDLY CLARIFY AS TO TO HOW MUCH BENEFIT A RETIRED SOLDIERS RANK WISE WILL GET BY GOVT GIVING ON RANK ONE PENSION. REGARDS nb/sub sansar singh, retd - pune Good news to hear after a waiting of long time. Credit goes to the leaders of the veterans who took this long outstanding demand to the highest level of the Govt. Finally the Govt has found the issue as an genuine and accord their approval. I salute the milions of veterans who got their dues in a very discipline and a systematic procedure. We have shown to Govt that we fight with external froces only and not internally. Thanks to the honorable prime minister who might have been waiting for a right time to declare. 635193-S EX Sgt Shakweel S. Shaikh (R.T.O) - Pune Thanks to all the Persons who took pain for OROP and helped the needy EX Servicemen.May Almighty bless them. 635193-S Ex Sgt Shakeel Shaikh (R.T.O) Top News Kareena lost ‘Ram Leela’ over pregnancy Support grows for Ajit Pawar No replacement for Ajit Pawar: Praful 'Ajit Pawar should withdraw resignation' Punjab ready to back FDI in retail? UPA has commercialised politics: BJP Bilawal-Hina love: Husband seeks details `100 mn people will die by 2030` Kareena lost ‘Ram Leela’ over pregnancy Support grows for Ajit Pawar No replacement for Ajit Pawar: Praful 'Ajit Pawar should withdraw resignation' Punjab ready to back FDI in retail? UPA has commercialised politics: BJP Bilawal-Hina love: Husband seeks details `100 mn people will die by 2030` Most Popular Photo Galleries Jal Satyagraha Against Dam Jal Satyagraha Against Dam Sivakasi Fire Tragedy Sivakasi Fire Tragedy Mumbai rains Mumbai rains Bharat Bandh Bharat Bandh Protests against FDI in retail, hike in fuel prices Protests against FDI in retail, hike in fuel prices US Consulates Attacked US Consulates Attacked Prince William, Kate on Asia tour Prince William, Kate on Asia tour 9/11 Anniversary 9/11 Anniversary ISRO`s 100th mission ISRO`s 100th mission Jal Satyagraha Against Dam Jal Satyagraha Against Dam Sivakasi Fire Tragedy Sivakasi Fire Tragedy Mumbai rains Mumbai rains Bharat Bandh Bharat Bandh Protests against FDI in retail, hike in fuel prices Protests against FDI in retail, hike in fuel prices US Consulates Attacked US Consulates Attacked Prince William, Kate on Asia tour Prince William, Kate on Asia tour 9/11 Anniversary 9/11 Anniversary Other News Pawar biggest supporter of UPA-II: Azad ‘Naveen Jindal is an exploiter, not a Congressman’ FBI joins search for missing Indian-American student Cabinet expansion: Congress, DMK hold talks Close shave for Kingfisher passengers at Chennai airport Blogs View all Blogs PM at 80: From 'underachiever' to defiant reformer PM has had a roller-coaster ride since 2004. Let the reforms continue... PM has tried to send across a message that he is no lame duck head of the government. special More Special ICC T20 World Cup 2012ICC T20 World Cup 2012 News | Schedule | In Pics | Points Tally In PicsIn Pics Emmy Awards 2012 | Blender`s Pride Fashion Tour 2012 Remembering Dev AnandRemembering Dev Anand Slideshow | Pic Gallery latest Rave party: 44 people test positive Dhoni`s off day Support grows for Ajit Pawar Hina, Bilawal Bhutto in love NCP leader Kupekar passes away Yeddyurappa to stay in BJP Rave party: 44 people test positive Dhoni`s off day Support grows for Ajit Pawar Hina, Bilawal Bhutto in love NCP leader Kupekar passes away more SlideshowsMore » Top 10 Bollywood Charmers Kareena Kapoor – loveliness personified Govt’s Big Ticket Reforms: India Inc Reacts SHOWBIZ When Madhuri and Sridevi danced on each other`s songs Sonakshi Sinha whistles for Ajay Devgn! Isha Sharvani’s choreographer Salman all set to make Bollywood debut Showbiz Sports Business Nation Pawar biggest supporter of UPA-II: Azad Read More » © 1998-2012 Zee News Limited (An Essel Group Company), All rights reserved. Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Legal Disclaimer | SMS to 57575 | Register | Jobs With Us | Complaint Redressal | Investor info