In view of the fact that review Petition filed by UOI RP (C) NO. 2565/2015 in SLP (C) No. 6567/2015 UOI Vs M.O. Inasu dismissed by HSC on 28.8.2015, and Following file notings of DOPW (obtained under RTI)
let us hope DOP&PW will now issue necessary instructions extending benefit of full min. pension to all pre 2006 pensioners irrespective of Q.S. rendered.
The extract from the File Noting obtained from DOP&PW under RTI ACT, on pro rata pension matter.
Extract from File Noting of DOP&PW OM 30.7.2015 obtained under RTIA:
12. It may be mentioned that in its order dated 22.1.2013 and 16.8.2013 in OA No. 715/2012 and OA No. 1015/2012 respectively, Hon’ CAT Ernakulam Bench directed that the revised pension fixed in terms of para 4.2 of OM dt. 1.9.2008 would not be reduced pro rata in cases where the qualifying service of a pre 2006 pensioner was less than 33 yrs. This order of Hon CAT was challenged by D/o Revenue in the H.C. of Kerala in OP(CAT) No. 4/2012 and No. 8/2012. Hon’ H.C. of Kerala dismissed the Op(CAT) No. 4/2012 and No. 8/2012 vide order dt. 7.1.2014. The SLP filed by the Dept. of Revenue against the order dt. 7.1.2014 has also been dismissed by Hon’ S/C. in its order dated 20.2.2015. Learned ASG, Sjri P.S.Narsimha has advised to file a Review Petition. The concerned file is presently with MOL(CA Section) and Ms. Rekha Pandey, Adv. is drafting the RP.
13. As already mentioned above, in the order dt. 29.4.2013 of Hon HC of Delhi in WP No. 1535/2012, it was observed that the only issue which survived was, with ref. to para 9 of OM dt. 28.1.2013 which makes it applicable from 24.9.2012 instead of 1.1.2006. In view of this observation of the Hon H.C. of Delhi, we may issue orders for giving effect to the OM dated 28.1.2013 w.e.f. 1.1.2006 instead of 24.9.2012. The question whether or not the revised pension in terms of OM 28.1.2013 would be reduced proportionally would be examined once the order of the Hon S.C. in the RP to be filed against dismissal of SLP 21044/2014 is available ( para 12 above)
( emphasis added)
Sd. S.K. Makkar US
Noting of Secy(P)
6. Thus the court ruling has become law of the land
7. Given the fact the review/curative petition in the same matter has once been dismissed by Hon. Apex Court, as also the fact that Civil Appeal of Ministry of Defence with which the SLPs in question got tagged, has also failed, there is no chance that a review petition may yield a different result. On the other hand this will not only engage the govt. machinery in uncessary litigation but will also result in attendant avoidable expenditure. ( emphasis added)
Sd. Alok Rawat Secy/ Pension
Hon MOS(PP) Sd. 7.5.2015