New Delhi [India], May 2 (ANI): The Delhi High Court has dismissed a writ petition seeking revision of pension based on a higher pay scale linked to the rank of Inspector, reaffirming that pension must be determined based on the actual pay scale held at the time of retirement and not merely on designation.
The case arose from a challenge to an order passed in 2018 by the Central Civil Pension Revisional Authority, which had rejected the claim for re-fixation of pension in a higher pay band. The petitioner, a retired personnel of the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), had superannuated in July 1997 after completing over three decades of service. At the time of retirement, he held the designation of Inspector/Radio Operator and was drawing pay in a pre-revised scale that was later mapped to a lower replacement pay scale under the Fifth Central Pay Commission.
The grievance raised was that, since the rank of Inspector corresponded to a higher pay scale under the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1997, pension ought to have been fixed accordingly. It was argued that applying a lower replacement scale resulted in financial loss over time. The petitioner also relied on service records, including an identity card reflecting the Inspector rank, to support the claim that he had attained the said position before retirement.
Additionally, a claim was made for benefits under the Assured Career Progression Scheme (ACPS), on the grounds that the scheme was intended to address stagnation and should be considered while determining pension parity, especially where similarly placed employees benefited from later revisions.
Opposing the plea, the Union government and CRPF authorities argued that pension is governed strictly by the last pay drawn and the pay scale actually held at the time of retirement. It was submitted that the petitioner had retired in a specific pre-revised scale, which was correctly replaced by the corresponding lower pay scale under the 1997 Rules. The authorities further contended that the ACPS, introduced in 1999, could not be extended to a person who had already retired before its introduction.
After examining the records and rival submissions, the Court noted that the core issue was limited: whether a pension could be re-fixed solely on the basis of rank, even if the higher pay scale was never actually drawn during service. Answering this in the negative, the Court reiterated that pensionary benefits flow from the pay scale held at the time of superannuation, and not from the designation alone.
The Bench observed that while the petitioner did hold the designation of Inspector/Radio Operator, there was no material to show that he had been formally placed in the higher pay scale claimed. The service identity card only establishes rank and not entitlement to a particular pay scale. The Court emphasised that in service law, designation and pay scale are distinct concepts, and financial benefits depend on the latter.
The Court also distinguished earlier judgments cited in support of the claim, noting that those cases involved prior upgradation or rationalisation of pay scales before implementation of revised pay rules. In the present case, no such upgradation had taken place during service, and therefore, the benefit of a higher replacement scale could not be granted.
On the issue of ACPS, the Court held that the scheme operates prospectively and is meant to serve employees to address stagnation. Since the petitioner had retired before the scheme came into force, it could not be applied retrospectively for the purpose of enhancing the pension. The Court also clarified that while a pension may be a continuing right, new financial schemes cannot be extended to past retirees unless specifically provided.
Finding no illegality or arbitrariness in the decision of the Revisional Authority, the Court concluded that the pension had been correctly fixed on the basis of the applicable replacement pay scale. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed as being without merit. (ANI)