OA 97 of 2015.Pdf
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL REGIONAL BENCH, KOCHI O.A.NO.97 of 2015 WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY,2016/28TH MAGHA, 1937 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, MEMBER (J) HON'BLE VICE ADMIRAL M.P.MURALIDHARAN, AVSM & BAR, NM, MEMBER (A) APPLICANTS: 1.T.GEORGE, EX AAW II, NO.051799A VALIPLACKAL HOUSE, CHOTTANIKKARA.P.O., ERNAKULAM, KERALA – 682 312. 2.P.R.SUBRAMANIAN, EX EAAR II, NO.051414, PAZHAMPILLY HOUSE, EDAVANAKKAD.P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, KERALA 682 502. 3.K.M.SHAMSUDDIN, EX ERA II, NO.051645A, KATTUTHANIPARAMBIL, NETTOOR.P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, KERALA 682 040. BY ADV.MR.V.K.SATHYANATHAN. Versus RESPONDENTS: 1.UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI – 110 011. 2.THE CHIEF OF NAVAL STAFF, INTEGRATED HEADQUARTERS OF MINISTRY OF DEFENCE (NAVY) NEW DELHI 110 011. 3.THE COMMODORE, BUREAU OF SAILORS, CHEETAH CAMP, MANKHURD, MUMBAI – 400 088. 4. THE PRINCIPAL CONTROLLER OF DEFENCE ACCOUNTS (PENSIONS), OFFICE OF THE P.C.D.A.(P), DRAUPADI GHAT, ALLAHABAD, UP - 211 014. BY ADV.SHRI P.J.PHILIP, CENTRAL GOVT. COUNSEL. OA No. 97 of 2015 : 2 : O R D E R VAdm.M.P.Muralidharan, Member (A): 1. The Original Application has been filed jointly by three applicants for rectification of alleged anomalies in fixation of their pension. 2. Applicant No.1, T.George, Ex AAW II, No.051799A was enrolled in the Navy on 27 January 1968 as Artificer Apprentice and was discharged from service on 31 January 1982 on completion of engagement period after serving 14 years and 04 days. Applicant, No.2 PR Subramanian, Ex EAAR II, No. 051414 was enrolled in the Navy on 30 January 1965 as Artificer Apprentice and was discharged from service on 31 January 1979 on completion of engagement period with a service of 14 years. Applicant No.3, KM Shamsuddin, Ex ERA II, No.051645A was enrolled in the Indian Navy on 28 January 1967 as an Artificer OA No. 97 of 2015 : 3 : Apprentice and was discharged from service on 31 January 1981 on completion of engagement period with a service of 14 years and 03 days. 3. While the applicants were initially not sanctioned pension as they had less than 15 years of service, post the Apex Court decision in Anuj Kumar Dey & anr vs. Union of India & ors., (1997) 1 SCC 366, training period was included as service towards pensionary benefits and accordingly pension was granted to all three applicants. Applicant No.1 was granted service pension vide PPO No.N/S/512/2004 dated 15 October 2004 with effect from 01 February 1982 for AA II rank, (Annexure A1). Applicant No.2 was granted service pension vide PPO.No.N/S/65/2005 dated 23 February 2005 with effect from 01 February 1979 for EAAR II rank (Annexure A2). Applicant No.3 was granted service pension vide PPO. No.N/S/372/2005 dated 15 July 2005 with effect from 01 February 1981 for ERA II rank (Annexure A3). OA No. 97 of 2015 : 4 : 4. Sri V.K.Sathyanathan, the learned counsel for the applicants submitted that Naib Subedar of the Army and Junior Warrant Officer of the Air Force are equivalent to Chief Petty Officer, Mech III/Artificer III, Art-II/Mech-II, Art- I/Mech-I of Navy. This has been brought out in Appendix A to PCDA(P) Circular No.397 dated 18 November 2008 (Annexure A4) implying that pension of Chief Petty Officer, Art-I, Art-II and Art-III are to be one and the same and should be on par with their equivalents in other services. 5. Pension for 15 years of service in respect of Naib Subedar/Chief Petty Officer/Mech III/Artificer III, Art- II/Mech-II, Art-I/Mech-I of Navy was fixed at Rs.5122/- with effect from 01 January 2006 ie, after the implementation of VIth Central Pay Commission (VI CPC). The pension of Junior Warrant Officers was slightly more, ie, Rs.5330/-. However, the learned counsel submitted that, based on the Government decision to bridge the gap between pre-2006 and post-2006 retirees, directions were issued vide Letter OA No. 97 of 2015 : 5 : No.PC 10(1)/2009-D(Pen-Pol) dated 08 March 2010. In consonance with this policy letter, PCDA (P) issued circular No.430 with pension payable to each rank appended in tables. The learned counsel further submitted that for Naib Subedar Group A of the Army, pension for 15 years of service was fixed at Rs.6976/- (Table No.31-Annexure A5). In case of Junior Warrant Officer Group X of the Air Force for similar length of service, similar pension was fixed ie, Rs.6976/- (Table No.116-Annexure A6). In case of Naval Artificers III to I, pension was to be in accordance with Tables 66 to 68. In all the cases, pension of 15 years service was fixed at Rs.6076/- (Annexures A7 to A9). 6. The learned counsel submitted that, fixation of pension is not made as per the decision of the Government of India. While Naib Subedars and Junior Warrant Officers have been granted equal pension, CPO, Art I, Art II and Art III of the Navy are getting lesser pension. Further there is also difference in pension between CPO and Art I – III OA No. 97 of 2015 : 6 : where the Artificers are getting lesser pension. 7. Applicant No.1 noticing the disparity had appealed to Commodore Bureau of Sailors (CABS) for rectification of the anomaly (Annexure A10). However the same was rejected by CABS on the premise that the applicant was not promoted to CPO rank (A11). While Applicants No.2 and 3 also made similar requests (Annexures A12, A13), no response has been received till date. 8. The learned counsel submitted that as Naib Subedar of the Army and the Junior Warrant officer of the Air Force are equivalent to Chief Petty Officer/Mech III/Artificer III, Art-II/Mech-II, Art-I/Mech-I of Navy, there cannot be any justification for fixing different pensions for them. The learned counsel therefore prayed that direction be given to the respondents to equalise the pension of Naib Subedar of Army and JWO of Air Force and Chief Petty Officer/Mech III, Art-III, Art-II/Mech-II, Art-I/Mech-I of Navy and revise OA No. 97 of 2015 : 7 : the pension of the applicants with effect from 01 July 2009. 9. Sri P.J.Philip, learned Central Government Counsel for the respondents submitted that the applicants were discharged from service from the basic rank of Artificer II ie, AA II, EAAR II and ERA II respectively and were not promoted to Chief Artificer rank, which is equivalent to the rank of CPO. They were therefore sanctioned service pension as per their last rank held. Learned counsel submitted that their claim for equivalence with Naib Subedar of the Army and JWO of the Air Force arose from the Appendix to Circular No.397 wherein CPO/Mech III-I/Art III-I have been equated with Naib Subedar of the Army and JWO of the Air Force. 10. The learned counsel submitted that in the Government resolution of 30th August 2008, accepting the recommendations of VI CPC, Art I, II and III were bunched together as Art III-I. Their grade pay was fixed at OA No. 97 of 2015 : 8 : Rs.3400/- which was above that of a Petty Officer/Art IV which was at Rs.2800/-; but below that of a CPO/Ch Art which was at Rs.4200/-. Therefore Art III–I rank below a Chief Petty Officer. Artificers come into the grade pay of CPO only when they are promoted to the rank of Chief Artificer, who draws the same grade pay as a CPO ie, Rs.4200/-. This was also in keeping with Regulation 247 of Regulations for the Navy, Part III, which specifies that Chief Artificers shall rank and command over Art I-III. 11. The learned counsel submitted that Circular No.397 of PCDA (P) was intended as Instructions on the Government policy letter dated 11 November 2008 post acceptance of the recommendations of the VI CPC by the Government. It could not make any changes on the gazette notification issued on the subject. The Appendix attached to Circular No.397 indicates a rank equivalence which is erroneous. However, the Circular as such does not contain any specific paragraph or provision equating pay scales of OA No. 97 of 2015 : 9 : Art III-I to that of Naib Subedar of the Army/JWO of the Air Force. Art III-I were created to meet functional requirements of the Navy and there are no equivalent ranks in the other services. 12. The learned counsel further submitted that a Table indicating correct equivalence of rank has been promulgated as Appendix to PCDA (P) Circular 501 dated 17 January 2013 for guidance of pension disbursing authorities wherein it is clearly shown that Art III-I of Navy are not equivalent to Naib Subedar of the Army or JWO of Air Force and they form a separate group. Further, in Circular No.512 of 26 January 2013 it has been clarified that equivalence in ranks is as in Circular 501. In respect of Art III-I it has been amplified that they have a grade pay of Rs.3400/- and there are no equivalents in the Army/Air Force. The applicants were entitled to service pension of Rs.5122/- with effect from 01 January 2006 and as per Table 67 to Circular 430, this was enhanced with effect from 01 July 2009 to OA No.