Case 1:
1. Parity in Pension of Pre 2006 retirees with the Post 2006 retirees (S-30 case)
1.1 S-30 pensioners (who retired on or before 31.12.2005 in the pay scale of S-30 i.e. Rs. 22400-525-24500) initially, filed O.A. No. 937/2010 & O.A. No. 2101/2010 before the Ld. CAT PB Delhi claiming pension parity with post 2006 retirees and for higher pension than post 2006 retirees who had worked in lower pay scales viz S-24 – S-29 pay scales. The Ld. CAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi, vide order dated 20.11.2014 in aforesaid OA and order dated 24.09.2015 in RA No. 10/2015 directed that:
(i) for determining revised pension/ family pension of past pensioners with effect from 1.1.2006, the revised 6th CPC pay of the applicants (pre-2006 retirees) corresponding to the pay at which the concerned pensioner had in fact retired (instead of minimum of the said pay scale) may be considered and
(ii) the basic pension of pre-2006 retirees in S-30 should be fixed in a manner that it is not less than Rs.38,500/- being the maximum pension that could be admissible to a person who retired from S-29 scale after 1.1.2006. Hon’ble CAT, however, directed that these benefits would be available from the date of filing respective OAs (and not from 1.1.2006).
1.2 The Writ Petitions WP (C) 8080/2016 have been filed by Union of India and WP (C) 6002/2016 by All India S-30 Pensioners Associations in Hon’ble HC, Delhi against the orders of Hon’ble CAT, wherein the Hon’ble HC Delhi vide common order dated 20.03.2024 allowed WP (C) 6002/2016 and dismissed WP (C) 8080/2016 filed by Union of India allowing the orders dated 20.11.2014 and 24.09.2015 of Hon’ble CAT Delhi in OA 937/2010 and R.A. No.10/2015 respectively and the impugned orders are, accordingly, modified by directing that the relief granted under the orders dated 20.11.2014 and 24.09.2015 would be granted to the members of the respondent w.e.f. the date of revision of pension i.e. 01.01.2006.
1.3 Following cases also covered in the common order of Hon’ble HC, Delhi dated 20.03.2024:
1) Writ Petition (C) No. 8080/2016 – In the matter of Union of India & others vs All India S-30 Pensioners Association and others (DOPPW)
2) Writ Petition (C) No. 10655/2017 – In the matter of Union of India & others vs Central Government Pensioners Association of Additional Secretary/Joint Secretary and others (DOPPW)
3) Writ Petition (C) No. 7350/2015 – In the matter of Union of India & others vs Forum of Retired IPS Officers and others (MHA)
4) Writ Petition (C) No. 3832/2012 – Ranbir Singh vs. Union of India and others (DoT)
5) Writ Petition (C) No. 6002/2016 – All India S-30 Pensioners Association and others vs Union of India & others (DOPPW)
6) Writ Petition (C) No. 2472/2017 – Central Government Pensioners Association of Additional Secretary/Joint Secretary and others vs Union of India & others (DOPPW)
7) Writ Petition (C) No. 2934/2019 in the matter of Union of India and Anr. vs. Pratap Narayan and Ors. (DOPPW)
8) Writ Petition (C) No. 6173/2019 Union of India and Anr. vs. Usha Ahuja (DPIIT)
1.4 Further, the SLP Diary No. 29124/2024 in the matter of Union of India & Ors. Vs All India S 30 Pensioners Association & Ors [arising out of impugned final judgement and order of Hon’ble HC, Delhi common order dated 20.03.2024] was also dismissed by Hon’ble SC vide order dated 04.10.2024.
1.5 The Hon’ble Court Orders has obliterated such distinction and proceeded on the premise that the Government lacks authority for providing for such distinction of Central Government pensioners based on their date of retirement.
1.6 Meanwhile, the petitioners have filed contempt cases for implementation of the Hon’ble HC/CAT orders.
1.7 The judgement of court envisages review of accepted policy of recommendations of 6th CPC with huge and cascading financial impacts. To address the issue, the matter was discussed in several inter-ministerial meetings along-with legal consultations and after that the Government of India has notified “Validation of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules and Principles for Expenditure on Pension Liabilities from the Consolidated Fund of India” on 29.03.2025 and it is part of the Finance Act, 2025 as Part IV.
1.8 UOI has submitted before the Hon’ble HC Delhi that in the light of the extant legislation passed by the Parliament, the Order dated 20.03.2024 is no longer applicable, meaning thereby Government of India is not obliged to implement the order dated 20.3.2024 and hence no contempt is made against the said order, as the section 150 of the Validation of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules validates that the Central Government has the authority and will always deemed to have had the authority, to classify its pensioners, and may create or maintain distinction amongst pensioners as deemed expedient for implementing the recommendations of the Central Pay Commissions.
1.9 On hearing dated 08.04.2025 the Hon’ble High Court Delhi Single Bench has referred the matter to Division Bench observing that a clarification by the Division Bench of this Court, is necessitated, with regard to the order of 20.03.2024 – as to whether the said Finance Act 2025, shall obliterate and eclipse the orders passed by this Court, thereby giving the authority to the Central Government to recognize and endorse the distinction between the various categories of the pensioners.
1.10 During the hearing in Division Bench, Mr. R. Venkatramani, Learned Attorney General who appears for the Union of India, that such a reference could not have been made in a contempt petition. The Hon’ble Division Bench have reservations on whether this submission can be addressed by them as a referral court. Perhaps, such a submission may have to be agitated either by way of appropriate proceedings before the learned Contempt Court or by way of an appeal against the order dated 08.04.2025 (Single Bench).
1.11 Union of India has filed a Letter Patent Appeal (LPA) No. 302 of 2025 in Hon’ble HC Delhi against the Hon’ble HC Delhi Single Bench order dated 08.04.2025 with the prayer to set aside/quash the impugned order dated 08.04.2025 passed by the Ld. Single Judge in Contempt Cases. The LPA was heard in Division Bench of Hon’ble Chief Justice, HC Delhi on 13.05.2025 wherein the court held:
“The proceedings pending before the learned Contempt Judge in this case were instituted under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and accordingly, if any question touching upon the issue as to whether there has been disobedience or not would have arisen, such an issue of question could have been referred by the learned Contempt Judge, and such a reference would have been referable to the provisions contained in Rule 2 of the Chapter 2 of the Delhi High Court (Original Side Rules, 2018). However, the reference made by learned Contempt Judge in this case is not confined to the said issue. What the learned Contempt Judge has referred for decision by the Division Bench is as to whether the passage of Finance Act, 2025 would eclipse the order dated 20.03.2024 passed by the Division Bench.
For the reasons given above, in our opinion, the order under appeal is without jurisdiction being outside the scope, ambit and jurisdiction of the learned Contempt Judge available to him under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Resultantly, we hold that the appeal is maintainable and deserves to be allowed as well. The appeal, thus, is allowed. The order dated 08.04.2024 passed by the learned Contempt Judge, which is under appeal herein, is hereby set aside.
→
