ups_01249 — Retired Officials of the Workers Education cadre of the Central Board of Workers' Education are to be paid pension as per the interim order in CAN No. 5418 of 2012 in W.P.C.T. No. 85/2010 of High Court of Calcutta whereby the competent authority in CBWE decided to pay Revised Rate of monthly pension provisionally on the basis of pre-revised scale of the post of officer holding immediately before his retirement, corresponding to the Sixth Central Pay Commission scale

UPS

Retired Officials of the Workers Education cadre of the Central Board of Workers' Education are to be paid pension as per the interim order in CAN No. 5418 of 2012 in W.P.C.T. No. 85/2010 of High Court of Calcutta whereby the competent authority in CBWE decided to pay Revised Rate of monthly pension provisionally on the basis of pre-revised scale of the post of officer holding immediately before his retirement, corresponding to the Sixth Central Pay Commission scale — This chunk pertains to an Original Application (OA No. 162 of 2013) filed by a retired Deputy Director from the Central Board for Workers' Education, challenging a decision regarding his pension paym... — Facts : The Applicant retired as the Deputy Director, Central Board for Workers' Education, Nagpur had filed this OA, impugning the letter, dated 12-1-2012 addressed to the Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Dharampeth Branch, Nagpur by the Director, Central Board of Workers Education, R-3 herein, wherefrom it will be evident that the pension was not fixed as per his last pay drawn. Reduced pension of ₹ 8,799 with effect from 1-8-2011 at pre-revised scale of ₹ 8,000-13,500 was allowed. Payment made based on the pay scale was implemented without proper authority which was questioned by the A G Audit. A case of disputed pay scale is pending before the Honourable High Court of Calcutta due to which the Department of Expenditure, Government of India, New Delhi directed, to pay pension based on the lower pay scales. The order of the CAT, Calcutta was challenged in the High Court of Calcutta in W.P.T.C. No. 85 of 2010. CAT, Calcutta directed the Respondents herein to consider the implementation of Das Gupta Commission Report in implementing the pay scales keeping in view the observations made in that order. Para. 15 of the above order of the CAT as above is reproduced in the judgment. The order of CAT, Calcutta Bench is challenged in the writ petition before High Court of Calcutta in W.P.C.T No.85/2010. Before the writ petition is disposed, the Department had already implemented the order of Calcutta Bench of CAT. The relevant portion of the said order, dated 28-5-2008 is reproduced for clarity in the judgment. During the hearing of the case, the Respondent counsel produced the order, dated 1-2-2013 issued by the Under Secretary, Government of India, addressed to R-3, wherein it is said that this issue had been decided to implement the interim orders of High Court, dated 7-9-2013 in CAN No. 5418 of 2012 to applicants only i.e., 18 added Respondents, subject to final outcome of the W.P.C.T. No. 85
(w) of 2010. That order is followed as stated by the counsel of respondents. The Bench observed that the said interim relief had to be extended to all similarly situated employees relying on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Amrit Lal Berry v. CCE [ AIR 1975 SC 538 ]. Similar order is also passed by the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka v. C. Lalitha [ 2006 (2) SCC 747 ].

UPS

Retired Officials of the Workers Education cadre of the Central Board of Workers' Education are to be paid pension as per the interim order in CAN No. 5418 of 2012 in W.P.C.T. No. 85/2010 of High Court of Calcutta whereby the competent authority in CBWE decided to pay Revised Rate of monthly pension provisionally on the basis of pre-revised scale of the post of officer holding immediately before his retirement, corresponding to the Sixth Central Pay Commission scale — This chunk pertains to an Original Application (OA No. 162 of 2013) filed by a retired Deputy Director from the Central Board for Workers' Education, challenging a decision regarding his pension paym... — Facts : The Applicant retired as the Deputy Director, Central Board for Workers' Education, Nagpur had filed this OA, impugning the letter, dated 12-1-2012 addressed to the Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Dharampeth Branch, Nagpur by the Director, Central Board of Workers Education, R-3 herein, wherefrom it will be evident that the pension was not fixed as per his last pay drawn. Reduced pension of ₹ 8,799 with effect from 1-8-2011 at pre-revised scale of ₹ 8,000-13,500 was allowed. Payment made based on the pay scale was implemented without proper authority which was questioned by the A G Audit. A case of disputed pay scale is pending before the Honourable High Court of Calcutta due to which the Department of Expenditure, Government of India, New Delhi directed, to pay pension based on the lower pay scales. The order of the CAT, Calcutta was challenged in the High Court of Calcutta in W.P.T.C. No. 85 of 2010. CAT, Calcutta directed the Respondents herein to consider the implementation of Das Gupta Commission Report in implementing the pay scales keeping in view the observations made in that order. Para. 15 of the above order of the CAT as above is reproduced in the judgment. The order of CAT, Calcutta Bench is challenged in the writ petition before High Court of Calcutta in W.P.C.T No.85/2010. Before the writ petition is disposed, the Department had already implemented the order of Calcutta Bench of CAT. The relevant portion of the said order, dated 28-5-2008 is reproduced for clarity in the judgment. During the hearing of the case, the Respondent counsel produced the order, dated 1-2-2013 issued by the Under Secretary, Government of India, addressed to R-3, wherein it is said that this issue had been decided to implement the interim orders of High Court, dated 7-9-2013 in CAN No. 5418 of 2012 to applicants only i.e., 18 added Respondents, subject to final outcome of the W.P.C.T. No. 85
(w) of 2010. That order is followed as stated by the counsel of respondents. The Bench observed that the said interim relief had to be extended to all similarly situated employees relying on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Amrit Lal Berry v. CCE [ AIR 1975 SC 538 ]. Similar order is also passed by the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka v. C. Lalitha [ 2006 (2) SCC 747 ].

Original Rule Text

Original Rule Text